About Kyle Ash

Kyle Ash As Greenpeace’s Senior Legislative Representative, Kyle Ash is responsible for domestic and international climate change policy analysis and campaign strategy.

Greenpeace cheers on Secretary John Kerry to be an Arctic champ

Greenpeace marching band and cheerleader activists help call attention to the threat the Arctic faces from climate change and off-shore drilling during a visit to the State Department

Greenpeace marching band and cheerleader activists help call attention to the threat the Arctic faces from climate change and off-shore drilling during a visit to the State Department

Today is Foreign Affairs Day, a holiday for the US Department of State, where Greenpeace will be among world diplomats communicating with Secretary Kerry. Our message: the United States loves the Arctic! We delivered a photo album to Secretary Kerry with photos from around the country of people showing their love for the Arctic. And we delivered that message in a very unique way: with a marching band and Arctic cheerleaders!

Call the State Department now and ask Secretary Kerry to be an Arctic champ!  Continue reading

Year 4 Obama Team Battles Climate Progress

We can say happy anniversary to the self-flattery and continual sabotage of the UN climate negotiations by President Obama’s climate team. The tone remains the same. Exactly one year ago in the climate conference, Greenpeace distributed “Games and Puzzles for Durban” with this caricature above of the Deputy Special Envoy, Jonathan Pershing, who works for Special Envoy, Todd Stern. If Secretary Clinton retires, this political delegation would have to be reappointed. Continue reading

Accounting in Doha, Obama Plays Chicken with Climate

While US President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, activists demonstrated on the streets of Oslo. Activists held signs that read "Obama: Our Climate. Your decision." 12/10/2009 © Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

After President Obama’s brief outburst on climate post-Sandy, we’ve heard hardly a peep. It’s as if he is hoping for just enough climate impacts to neutralize the fossil fuel industry that beckons his frequent pandering. His political will is playing a game of chicken with climate tipping points. Continue reading

“Buffett Rule” on Coal Exports in Jeopardy

Warren Buffett will be irritated with a new bill from Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) that would enforce the polluter-pays principle upon transportation of coal. Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway bought BNSF Railway under the notion of profiting off the socialized-costs principle – where the public pays for pollution and other costs created by extractors and transporters of coal. Due partly for his very anti-social investment plan in coal exports, Buffett has been named among the top “climate killers” in America. Congress should pass McDermott’s bill immediately.

McDermott’s bill charges $10 per ton of coal extracted to cover the costs of local environmental and social impacts of transporting it throughout the country. It also requires rail cars be covered, since a significant amount of coal dust is spilled in transit. The timing of this bill is good, given the rash of coal train derailments lately. About 1 billion tons of coal are mined and transported across the country every year.

Buffett and other investors in ports and railroads in Oregon and Washington are hoping to export hundreds of millions of tons of coal out of the Pacific Northwest. The Obama administration has already demonstrated it is on board with the plan to sell taxpayer-owned coal in Wyoming at about 1/100th of the price it will fetch in SE Asia. This makes the “Buffett Rule” on pro-tycoon tax rates look like a deceptive sideshow, as Obama’s government pawns American assets to wealthy investors who will sell it abroad. We know one reason Buffett loves Obama, but it’s unclear why Obama loves him.

Coal magnates have long argued they provide a cheap, secure energy source. Convinced, the federal government has long provided all sorts of love to the likes of Peabody and Arch Coal. This is why Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act (S.3080). The coal industry lies about what they peddle being cheap. If all the socialized costs of mining, transporting, and burning coal were part of our electric bill, we’d pay as much as three times more per month. Coal is unaffordable.

The coal industry doesn’t give two coal ash dumps about our energy security. Last week, Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) released a report showing that exports of Appalachia coal more than doubled in the last few years. They’re destroying our mountains to produce electricity in Europe. And if Buffett gets his way, Appalachia coal would be a small part of this growing US coal export market.

The proposals to export the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) coal to Asia through Pacific Northwest ports are destructive at every turn. First, the coal is strip mined from primarily public land. Next, coal companies like Peabody transport the coal by rail lines like BNSF. Each train would be over a mile long, travel hundreds of miles and bisect communities from Missoula MT, to Sandpoint ID, to Spokane WA and down the iconic Columbia River Gorge to Portland, OR. These huge and heavy trains would spew toxic coal dust and carcinogenic diesel fumes, block traffic and impede emergency responders at intersections. Coal trains would also squeeze out passenger rail and benefit from rail investments made to increase mass transit. Coping with these export plans would require massive new rail infrastructure, much of which would be covered by taxpayers.

Congressman McDermott just wants the coal industry to cover some of the local burdens they instigate on public health and safety from transporting coal. But this is certainly not the majority of the costs they currently outsource to us. This bill doesn’t cover the disastrous environmental costs of strip mining coal, such as pollution of waterways from acid mine drainage and tailings, deforestation, topsoil loss, and pollution from diesel-burning mining equipment. McDermott’s bill doesn’t cover local impacts on communities in Asia burning American coal. McDermott’s bill does not cover the truly catastrophic impacts of global climate disruption which will be made worse by burning possibly billions of tons of coal in Asia that would otherwise stay in the ground. Indeed, the combined effect of all six west coast coal export proposals would be among the worst developments globally for the climate.

McDermott’s bill appears like a completely reasonable request in our current anti-reason Congress, which has no problems socializing costs and privatizing benefits for fossil fuel investors. But a reasonable Congress would prioritize keeping coal in the ground. Coal is poisonous – to people, fish and wildlife, our air and water, and the climate.

this blog is co-written by Bethany Cotton

EIA’s False Coal Economy

Any day this month the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is supposed to release its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), one of the most widely referenced predictions of the energy market – and one that is infamously unreliable. Worse, EIA’s Energy Outlook is consistently slanted to encourage the kind of risky bets that have left some utilities like Duke Energy heavily reliant on coal - and their customers bearing the rising costs. Will the final 2012 Outlook be any different, or will EIA re-confirm its role as purveyor of the myth of unlimited, cheap coal?

Compared with industry forecasts about coal demand, and 2009 analysis from the US Geological Survey (USGS) about coal supply and price, EIA’s projections in 2011 seemed to use factors divorced of economics and physics. EIA grossly overestimated how much coal will be mined and the amount of coal that will be burned in America, and terribly underestimated the cost everyone will pay. Continue reading

Coal Industry Losing Despite Their Money and Politicians

Today, Senator Bingaman (D-NM), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, unveiled his legislative abomination of President Obama’s proposed “clean energy standard.” As it’s obvious to everyone, including Chair Bingaman, that this “CES” bill will be only a discussion piece, it’s an utter failure. This bill ratchets down the debate on energy policy by reiterating once again that anything managing to reduce C02 emissions at the smokestack is “clean”: Fracking with its massive methane plumes and toxic water pollution–as long as they confess their hundreds of chemicals. Burning old-growth trees—they’ll grow back. Nuclear generation and its radioactive wastes—if you can get public money to pay for it. Over a hundred million tons of toxic coal ash per year–it’s recyclable. If we don’t burn it in America, we’ll raise its climate footprint by shipping it abroad to be burned. Continue reading

Obama’s “New” Climate Initiative

It has become tiresome to rip on President Obama for failing America and the world on climate. We could not help but get excited in November 2008 when we realized Bush II and his oil lackeys were out of office in two months. But one could argue that President Obama led us on by saying things like “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all.” And, regarding White House leadership, “That will change when I take office.”

The bar for Obama administration action on climate has become so low that it doesn’t take much to get people excited. For example, the President used the words “climate change” during his recent state of the union address, having failed to mention this existential dilemma last year. Some people read a lot into that. Continue reading

Weak Carbon Target Jives with Science, Says Obama Team

By: Kyle Ash

Many people have given up hope that President Obama will take the lead on climate. This is a massive disappointment, given the hope we all had after the departure of Bush and his denial of climate change, and Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to take action. Apparently, Obama was just trying to woo us.

Here at the Durban climate talks, President Obama’s team has begun actively denying the urgency of global climate change. This is just another form of climate denialism.  

Here’s an excerpt from an article in today’s ECO, the conference daily paper published by Climate Action International, the alliance of over 700 organizations including Greenpeace: “…science says climate change is happening due to human activity, and it’s urgent. The US received a Fossil of the Day award for statements about the science of climate change by Jonathan Pershing, the US Deputy Special Envoy, in his first press briefing here in Durban. Pershing is a scientist himself, and was involved with the IPCC, but he implausibly said current collective mitigation targets are sufficient to avoid going over 2 degrees. His overall message was that the US stands on its position that avoiding runaway global warming is not urgent enough to expend much political capital on commitments in the UNFCCC.

…By saying the US is only really concerned with post-2020 commitments, the Obama Administration’s negotiators are saying their boss doesn’t need to deal with this issue, since Obama won’t be in office after 2016 (assuming he wins another 4 year term). In his 2008 campaign, however, President Obama promised to be a leader on global climate disruption.  But expectations have now fallen so low that all we can ask is for the US to agree some very reasonable steps forward in the negotiations – for example, on a mandate to package commitments into a legally binding agreement by 2015.  That would give the world four more years, in addition to the Bali Action Plan, agreed by the Bush administration, which gave the world two. The climate may not wait. The world certainly cannot be dragged down by another US administration in denial.”

When the Obama administration says the President is making climate change a priority, it is a claim with no foundation. The perfect example is the US pollution target, which is less than half target agreed by the US in Kyoto. By acting in 2009 as if the US had never signed onto anything, Obama followed the lead of President Bush who was probably the first leader in modern history to un-sign a treaty. 

More importantly, the US climate pollution target is so weak that it may already have been accomplished without any new national policies aimed at reducing climate pollution. Adding up reduced CO2 from new car efficiency rules, plus closing defunct coal-fired power plants may be enough as even analysts from Shell Oil argue can happen with a recovery from the recession. Although it’s worth mentioning that the recession resulted in a reduction of emissions almost equal to half of the Obama administration goal.

Mitt Romney many believe to be Obama’s likeliest contender in next year’s bid for the presidency. People are recalling that Romney has a record of crafting, signing into law, and implementing climate policy. And one of the best Obama appointees, who is in fact in charge of developing EPA greenhouse gas policy, previously worked in Romney’s government. Despite the crazy rhetoric by Republican candidates on climate, Obama will have a very hard time arguing he has a better record than Romney.

Original Post via QuitCoal.org