SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
wenonah hauter
Watchdog Group Launches Counter Attack on 'Dangerous Carbon Capture Hype'
"Carbon capture and storage is a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry and a dangerous distraction from the pressing need to move off oil and gas," said one advocate.
May 15, 2023
The national climate watchdog group Food & Water Watch on Monday unveiled a new interactive multimedia resource where users can learn more about "false narratives" regarding carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology pushed by fossil fuel companies eager to avoid what scientists and energy experts say is the actual solution to the climate emergency: Ending the burning of coal, gas, and oil to bring down carbon emissions.
Visitors to the group's new "resource hub" first encounter a title card reading, "The Carbon Capture Solution" before the last word is crossed out and replaced with "Scam."
The site, titled Carbon Capture Scam, includes video storytelling, expert testimonials, analysis, infographics, and other content that help explain to readers why carbon capture and storage (CCS) is simply "a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry" rather than a real solution that will reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere and planetary heating.
CCS refers to technologies that are designed to trap and remove carbon emissions from smokestacks and the atmosphere, such as a $1 billion project at Petra Nova coal plant in Texas and one at the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico, both of which were found to be unfeasible.
"What carbon capture and storage is, is a complex set of machines that is attached to a smokestack where carbon dioxide is being emitted, and it captures that CO2," said biologist Sandra Steingraber in a video featured on the site. "Problem one, it's going to increase the energy, just to run the machinery, by 20%."
Other emissions aside from carbon also increase with the use of CCS technology, added Steingraber, such as smog, formaldehyde, and benzene.
"These are chemicals that we know cause heart attack and stroke, that shorten lifeaspans, that are linked to childhood asthma, and are also linked to preterm birth—preterm birth being the number one cause of disability in the United States," said Steingraber.
The Carbon Capture Scam, Explained by Dr. Sandra Steingraberwww.youtube.com
Despite evidence that CCS is more expensive than its proponents admit as well as being energy-intensive and actually contributing to a net increase in emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency last week unveiled new power plant rules that rely heavily on the unproven technology and include plans to build thousands of miles of new pipelines to carry the emissions proponents say will be trapped and stored.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act also allocated billions of dollars to expand CCS.
"The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars promoting carbon capture and policy makers at all levels have taken the bait, doling out billions of dollars to support its development. But CCS is a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry and a dangerous distraction from the pressing need to move off oil and gas," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter on Monday.
"Our Carbon Capture Scam web hub exposes the industry lies behind CCS through detailed research, and gives people an opportunity to take action and fight back against CCS and for a truly clean, renewable energy future," she added.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have joined the fossil fuel industry in attempting "to lull consumers into thinking there's an easier fix than ending fossil fuel use," reads Carbon Capture Scam.
"Stop spreading false hope about direct carbon capture," said climate scientist Peter Kalmus, who is quoted on the site. "It won't help prevent catastrophic damage in the short term, it would require tremendous energy, and it may never scale up. Keep researching, but don't bet on it happening. [Definitely] don't bet the whole planet."
Instead of investing in CCS, Carbon Capture Scam says, Congress must stop peddling "dangerous carbon capture hype," end its industry-approved "delay tactics," and ramp up efforts to shift to a renewable energy system.
"Renewable energy and energy efficiency are reliable, cost-effective, and ready for widespread deployment," reads the website. "Given huge advances in production and storage, we could meet 100% of our energy needs with clean, renewable energy—today. All we need is the political will to make it happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Power Plant Rule Relies on 'Industry Propaganda Scheme' of Carbon Capture: Critics
"Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real—and all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures," said one campaigner.
May 11, 2023
The Biden administration on Thursday unveiled a power plant emissions rule whose effectiveness at slashing planet-warming pollution would heavily depend on a major expansion of carbon capture, an oil industry-backed technological scheme that climate advocates view as wasteful, ineffective, and actively harmful.
The Environmental Protection Agency's newly proposed emission standards for coal- and gas-fired power plants were described as the most strict ever proposed in the U.S., and the rule garnered praise from major environmental groups.
If implemented—far from a sure thing given the Supreme Court's recent decision hamstringing the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution—the rule would require most new and existing fossil fuel power plants to capture 90% of their emissions by between 2035 and 2040. Coal- and gas-fired power plants are the nation's second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
"The draft rules offer utilities years of lead time to build out carbon capture or hydrogen infrastructure—or to take their plants offline," E&E News reported.
Climate campaigners expressed dismay that the EPA rule relies so significantly on the large-scale adoption of unproven carbon capture and storage technology, which would entail the construction of thousands of miles of new pipelines to carry the trapped emissions.
"Carbon capture is nothing more than a fossil fuel industry propaganda scheme," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch (FWW), an environmental group that has described the technology as a "dangerous fantasy."
"Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real—and all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures. Throwing good money after bad is not a climate solution—it's an industry bailout," Hauter argued. "Even if the technology managed to meet even the lowest thresholds for emissions capture, the energy required to power the facilities would negate much of the supposed benefit."
Last year, President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats approved large subsidies for the carbon capture industry via the Inflation Reduction Act, a law that proponents said would slash U.S. carbon emissions by 40% by the end of the decade.
But critics at the time cast doubt on that projection given that it hinges on the effectiveness of largely unproven carbon capture initiatives—and similar questions will likely be raised about EPA estimates of the power plant rule's potential impact. The EPA said the rule "would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of total carbon dioxide (CO2) through 2042."
Ozawa Bineshi Albert, co-executive director of the Climate Justice Alliance, said that "if we are to combat climate change we must do so with real, viable solutions—not unproven technologies that only promise to continue the legacy of dumping pollutants onto frontline communities."
"Let's be clear: Carbon capture and sequestration technologies are harmful and unproven," Albert added. "They do not operate at scale, and to expand carbon capture to a fraction of what is envisioned by this order would require constructing thousands of miles of polluting pipelines into communities already most impacted by the burning of fossil fuels. A study in the European Union showed that adding carbon capture to power plants increased nitrogen oxides by 44%, particulate matter by 33%, and ammonia by a whopping 30-fold increase. CCS projects will exacerbate environmental disparities and lead to more environmental racism. This is a distraction—one that will let fossil fuel extraction continue unchecked."
"There is no technological quick fix for our climate crisis. We must cut fossil fuels off at their source and transition to clean, renewable energy now."
In a recent report, FWW analyzed major carbon capture projects and found that the technology's "track record makes it appear to be a handout to fossil fuel corporations, publicly financing their attempts to keep their harmful product viable."
Despite such findings, the EPA determined in its new rule proposal that "carbon capture represents a 'best system of emissions reduction,' which means it's been adequately proven," Politico noted Thursday.
"In the U.S., only one power plant has ever captured carbon dioxide at scale: the W.A. Parish Generating Station near Houston," the outlet observed. "The carbon capture technology at Petra Nova, bolstered by nearly $200 million in federal money, grabbed coal-produced CO2 and piped it to an oil field to be used for crude oil production."
In a statement, EPA Administrator Michael Regan ignored concerns about the efficacy of carbon capture, declaring that the new rule would harness "proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future."
The EPA rule will undergo a 60-day public comment period after it is formally published in the Federal Register.
Instead of resting its climate agenda on dubious carbon capture schemes, Hauter said the Biden administration should be prioritizing "immediate actions to limit the supply of dirty fossil fuels" and expand renewable energy, which research has shown to be a much better climate investment than carbon capture.
"This requires using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals," Hauter continued. "There is no technological quick fix for our climate crisis. We must cut fossil fuels off at their source and transition to clean, renewable energy now."
Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said it is "no surprise" that the EPA's proposed standards "fall far short of what the climate emergency demands given the right-wing Supreme Court's restrictions on power plant rules."
"The EPA needs to get serious about cutting carbon emissions by creating a national science-based cap on greenhouse gas pollution through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program," said Rylander. "That's the best way to spur the economy-wide decarbonization we need now."
Other environmental groups were less critical of the Biden administration's proposal as a whole, welcoming it as a meaningful step in the right direction while acknowledging that more ambition is needed to fend off the worst of the climate emergency.
"We're pleased to see the Biden Administration continue to address climate pollution in a serious way. Now, the administration must finish the job and ensure the final standards are as strong as possible," said Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club. "But we know the work to confront the climate crisis doesn’t stop at strong carbon pollution standards. The continued use or expansion of fossil power plants is incompatible with a livable future. Simply put, we must not merely limit the use of fossil fuel electricity: we must end it entirely."
Julie McNamara, the deputy policy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the release of the power plant rule "a pivotal turning point, with Administrator Regan rightfully and necessarily moving to hold coal- and gas-fired power plants to account for their ongoing carbon pollution."
But McNamara also implored the administration to "prioritize robust environmental justice protections and environmental and public health safeguards, especially when it comes to carbon capture and sequestration and hydrogen co-firing."
"The agency must protect against greenwashing attempts by fossil fuel interests that would worsen, not lessen, environmental injustices," McNamara said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Environmental Watchdog Says Buttigieg 'Can and Must' Restore Obama-Era Railway Safety Rules
"While the serious health impacts of the derailment in East Palestine have only just begun to emerge, we know that toxic spills like these can be devastating to communities and families for decades," said one advocate.
Mar 09, 2023
As industry employees push for improvements to bipartisan railway safety legislation and reject efforts by rail companies to introduce new safety rules on their own, one public health advocacy group on Thursday called on the Biden administration to do everything in its power to make trains safer for workers and American communities.
Last month's train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio—which sent toxic chemicals into the environment as officials conducted a controlled release of the vinyl chloride that was carried by the train—was the result of successful lobbying by the rail industry against safety regulations, said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and President Joe Biden have the power to reinstate crucial Obama-era regulations that could prevent further accidents, said the group.
"Secretary Buttigieg and this administration must act immediately to reduce the risks of these horrific derailments by first reestablishing the commonsense rail freight safety standards implemented by [former President Barack] Obama and unconscionably rolled back by [former President Donald] Trump," said Hauter.
The Trump administration in 2018 rolled back regulations mandating the use of highly responsive electronic braking systems for trains carrying oil and other flammable materials.
A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that an overheated wheel bearing rather than the brake system was likely behind the derailment of the Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, but a number of other derailments in recent weeks have prompted calls for the regulations to be reinstated immediately.
On Thursday, just before the CEO of Norfolk Southern testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and apologized for the accident, another train owned by the company left the tracks in Alabama. CEO Alan Shaw was informed of the accident by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who said, "You may need to look into that."
On Wednesday, a train owned by freight company CSX derailed in Sandstone, West Virginia and released an "unknown" quantity of diesel fuel and oil into the New River.
"While the serious health impacts of the derailment in East Palestine have only just begun to emerge, we know that toxic spills like these can be devastating to communities and families for decades," said Hauter. "All trains carrying dangerous toxic chemicals should be classified as 'high-hazard flammable trains,' which would require more stringent safety requirements and notice to state and local officials of their contents."
"These are actions," she added, "that Secretary Buttigieg and the administration can and must make immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fatigue, Migraines Linked to Fracking as Case Builds for National Ban
'It is abundantly clear that fracking is harming people, and the only solution is to stop fracking'
Aug 25, 2016
New research published Thursday links severe fatigue and migraine headaches to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, leading to renewed calls for a ban on the controversial oil and gas extraction method.
Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health reported their findings online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. They say their research adds to "a growing body of evidence linking the fracking industry to health problems."
"The people in this state do not deserve to be put in harm's way by leaders who are choosing to ignore the dangers of fracking and related infrastructure."
--Diane Sipe, Pennsylvanians Against Fracking
The study was based on a survey of 7,785 adult primary care patients of the Geisinger Health System, a healthcare provider that covers 40 counties in north and central Pennsylvania. With the Marcellus Shale running below most of Pennsylvania, the northeastern and southwestern parts of the state have become ground zero for drilling.
According to a press statement from Johns Hopkins, the researchers found that 1,765 respondents (23 percent) suffered from migraines; 1,930 people (25 percent) experienced severe fatigue; and 1,850 (24 percent) had current symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis, defined as three or more months of nasal and sinus symptoms.
The researchers then used publicly available well data to estimate participants' exposure to the fracking industry--accounting for both the size and number of wells, as well as the distance between wells and people's homes. "While no single health condition was associated with proximity to active wells, those who met criteria for two or more of the health conditions were nearly twice as likely to live closer to more or larger wells," they reported.
"These three health conditions can have debilitating impacts on people's lives," said study author Aaron W. Tustin, a resident physician in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Bloomberg School. "In addition, they cost the health care system a lot of money. Our data suggest these symptoms are associated with proximity to the fracking industry."
While the study proves correlation, not causation, senior author Brian S. Schwartz, a physician and environmental epidemiologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the New York Times, "There have now been seven or eight studies with different designs and in different populations, and while none is perfect, there is now a growing body of evidence that this industry is associated with biologically plausible impacts on health. Do we know the exact mechanism? No. That requires further study."
Noted Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter on Thursday, "this is the third study released by Hopkins in the past year that connects proximity to fracking sites with adverse health outcomes. Last fall, researchers found an association between fracking and premature births and high-risk pregnancies, and last month, found ties between fracking and asthma."
"While the industry will no doubt continue to refute the expanding science about the dangers of fracking, we can't afford to ignore it," said Hauter, who is a vocal proponent of a national fracking ban. "The public health and climate impacts of extreme fossil fuel extraction requires bold leadership to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition swiftly to renewable energy."
"The public health and climate impacts of extreme fossil fuel extraction requires bold leadership to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition swiftly to renewable energy."
--Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch
Indeed, said Diane Sipe, Pennsylvania resident and steering committee member of Pennsylvanians Against Fracking: "Enough is enough."
"It is abundantly clear that fracking is harming people, and the only solution is to stop fracking," Sipe declared. "The people in this state do not deserve to be put in harm's way by leaders who are choosing to ignore the dangers of fracking and related infrastructure. It is time for Governor [Tom] Wolf to follow the example set in New York, and put the well-being of his constituents above the profits of the oil and gas industry and ban fracking in Pennsylvania once and for all."
A separate study, also published Thursday, found that prenatal exposure to fracking chemicals may threaten fertility in female mice.
"The evidence indicates that developmental exposure to fracking and drilling chemicals may pose a threat to fertility in animals and potentially people," said the study's senior author, Susan C. Nagel of the University of Missouri. "Negative outcomes were observed even in mice exposed to the lowest dose of chemicals, which was lower than the concentrations found in groundwater at some locations with past oil and gas wastewater spills."
She added: "These findings build on our previous research, which found exposure to the same chemicals was tied to reduced sperm counts in male mice. Our studies suggest adverse developmental and reproductive health outcomes might be expected in humans and animals exposed to chemicals in regions with oil and gas drilling activity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The United States of Monsanto?
Why is it that so many politicians are all about letting states make decisions on controversial issues—until some states want to do something that Big Food companies oppose?
Mar 11, 2016
This week thousands of Americans took time out of their busy days to call their Senators to demand that they vote against the DARK Act, a bill sponsored by Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, which would prevent consumers from knowing if the food they eat and feed their families contains genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients. Their support for GMO labeling was echoed by more than 600 organizations, including farming and fishing groups and food companies, representing tens of millions of members and customers who this week also urged the Senate to reject this troubling bill.
GMO crops are created by transferring genetic material from one organism into another to create specific traits, such as resistance to treatment with herbicides, or to make a plant produce its own pesticide to repel insects. Unlike traditional plant and animal breeding, which tries to develop better varieties by selecting traits from the same species, genetic engineering techniques can insert specific genes from any plant, animal or microorganism into the DNA of a different species.
The DARK Act passed out of committee last week by a 14-6 vote and is expected to hit the Senate floor any day now. The House already passed a similar bill in July. If passed in the Senate, it will block state laws that require labeling of GMOs, instruct the USDA to implement a voluntary labeling program and kick off a USDA propaganda program to sell the public on GMOs.
But an overwhelming majority of Americans--over 90 percent in many polls--support GMO labeling. Three states-- Vermont, Connecticut and Maine--have passed laws to that effect. Now, some in the Senate want to thwart these efforts. Why is it that so many politicians are all about letting states make decisions on controversial issues--until some states want to do something that Big Food companies oppose?
As with most battles brewing inside the Beltway, the answer can be found at the end of a paper trail--a green paper trail. Monsanto, a leading manufacturer of GMO seeds (and the herbicides used with them) has spent millions of dollars over the past several years to block GMO labeling efforts, most notably state and local ballot initiatives in California, Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon that failed.
Follow the Money
Since 1999, the fifty largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotech and agrochemical trade associations have spent more than US $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, much of it to create a favorable political context to allow GMOs to proliferate. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which represents food companies like Kraft and PepsiCo, has spent millions of dollars lobbying in favor of the DARK Act too. Washington's Attorney General recently accused the GMA of maintaining an "egregious" plot to conceal the identity of the corporate donors behind its $11 million campaign to defeat that state's 2013 food-labeling initiative.
What's happening here is painfully obvious. The public is rejecting GMOs, a dubious technology upon which Big Food has built its empire, and now it's pulling out all the stops to protect its market shares and its profit margins.
The public is rightfully suspicious of GMOs. We simply don't know enough about their long-term effects, so it's logical that consumers would want to know whether or not they are eating them. Support for GMO labeling is so strong in fact that Campbell's recently announced it would label GMOs in its products, and even withdrew its support for anti-labeling efforts. But we can't rely on individual corporations to decide these matters for us.
And "voluntary" labeling is not the answer, either, since it effectively upholds the status quo and translates to very little, if any, labeling at all. While there is talk of amending the DARK Act to include an amendment to encourage voluntary labeling, it's crucial to note that this so-called "compromise" will do little to help consumers know if the food they're eating contains GMOs. This clearly won't do.
Reclaiming Democracy
Industry's attempt to block GMO labeling laws is yet another symptom of a democracy hijacked by corporate interests. We the people have elected our leaders to Congress to represent our interests, because we live in a democracy--not a nation controlled by a corporate oligarchy. At least, that's the way it should be. That's why we're urging the Senate to reject the DARK Act and any compromise that results in anything less than on-package labeling that tells consumers if a product contains GMO ingredients.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Global Frackdown, Movement to Ban Deadly Gas Drilling Gains Momentum
Oct 01, 2014
Just over a week ago, I had the pleasure of participating in the People's Climate March, along with our allies and thousands of citizens from around the world. We stood together in New York City to demand that our world's leaders take definitive action on climate change. Of course, a big part of our mission on climate change is our fight to ban fracking, and while 2014 has seen some major milestones for our efforts, perhaps the most important of these is the evidence that our movement is growing. In order to get you inspired for the 2014 Global Frackdown, we created a video to show you some of the faces that are out there working hard around the country to ban fracking. As our video demonstrates, we are building on this momentum, and we need you to join us on October 11 to show just how strong we are.
Ready to Ban Fracking? Join the Global Frackdown.On October 11, communities across the globe will unite, sending one common message to their decision makers: ban fracking ...
Throughout 2014, we have witnessed citizens taking action across the nation, as well as around the globe. At Food & Water Watch, we have been keeping track of this progress as evidenced by the growing number of actions taken by communities against fracking. Last year's Global Frackdown was a huge success and 2014 is shaping up to be our biggest Frackdown yet. It's a good thing our movement is growing because we need to show our strength now more than ever.
The oil and gas industry has been pushing its agenda for expansion, particularly in California, Florida, Maryland, New York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In fact, just this week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved Dominion Cove Point in Maryland, one of the largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities in the nation, and the only one that's located close to a community. In New York, our efforts to birddog Governor Cuomo have proven successful. The Governor himself commented on the tenacious and persistent nature of our efforts to remind him that we don't want fracking in the Empire State. So far, mainly due to the determination of this movement, we've kept fracking out of New York.
We are honored and proud to stand with each and every one of our allies in this critical fight against fracking. Will you join us? You can join an already existing event or even plan to host one by visiting Globalfrackdown.org, and we encourage you to share your stories with us. Help us spread the word about this year's Global Frackdown by sharing this video.
Where will YOU be on October 11?
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy