Blog Archive

Showing posts with label Tom Steyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Steyer. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2014

Mark Hertsgaard: The People’s Climate March Was Huge, but Will It Change Everything?

Hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets of New York and cities around the world on Sunday, but the fight for climate justice is only beginning

by Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation, September 21, 2014

The People’s Climate March winds through midtown Manhattan on Sunday, September 21, 2014. (AP Images/John Minchillo)
Hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of New York City on Sunday calling for “climate justice” in the largest mass protest to date against government and corporate inaction to limit the overheating of the planet. Organizers of the People’s Climate March claimed that in addition to the New York march some 2,676 other demonstrations were held in 146 countries, including a march of 30,000 people in London that was televised to the New York crowd on a giant screen set up on Sixth Avenue at 52nd Street. “We said it would take everyone to change everything, and everyone showed up,” said Eddie Bautista, the executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, one of the central groups that organized the march.
The march featured an unprecedented diversity of participants, including many thousands of union members as well as representatives from indigenous people’s organizations, students and faith groups, and even a contingent of business types marching behind an “Investors for Climate Solutions” banner. Proceeding without any violence under a muggy, cloudy sky, the demonstration kicked off Climate Week in New York City. World leaders, including President Obama, will gather at the United Nations on Tuesday for a one-day climate summit intended to build momentum toward signing an ambitious global agreement at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. On Monday, protesters plan to “Flood Wall Street” to demand that investors shift assets from climate-destructive fossil fuels to solar, wind and other forms of clean energy.
Some big investors will beat “Flood Wall Street” to the punch: on Monday, a collection of institutional investors that manage $50 billion among themselves will announce that they will divest entirely from fossil fuels. Prominent among the group is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, whose assets were accumulated by the Rockefeller family’s many decades of producing petroleum, first under the Standard Oil brand and later under Exxon. “John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, moved America out of whale oil and into petroleum,” explained Stephen Heintz, President of the Fund. “We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy.”
“One announcement alone isn’t going to tip the balance, but when one announcement is followed by another and then another, that gets CEOs to pay attention,” Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate activist who has funded numerous electoral campaigns on behalf of climate action, told The Nation. “CEOs pay a lot of attention to their shareholders, just like everyone pays attention to what their boss thinks. So actions like this send a powerful message.”
Visually, the most striking aspect of the People’s Climate March was its racial diversity and preponderance of young people. The first line of marchers to head south from Columbus Circle were fifteen high school and college age youths, nearly all of them African-American or Latino, wearing orange T-shirts that announced they represented the Rockaway Youth Task Force. Rockaway, a peninsula in Queens that borders the Atlantic Ocean, was brutalized by Hurricane Sandy in November 2012; some residents at the march carried signs asserting that they had been left without electricity for fifteen days after the storm, even as Wall Street was back up and running in seventy-two hours. The highlighting of so-called “front-line communities” was international: later in the march, protesters carried blue umbrellas, two storeys high, with the names of other people and places that have been displaced by climate violence: “Island Nations,” “Public Housing,” “People of Color,” “Renters.”
Labor union members were also an unmistakable presence, perhaps the largest single contingent in the march. “Today we make history. This is your Woodstock. This is the day our children will remember us for,” Chris Erikson, the business manager of Local 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, told a labor rally at 58th and Broadway, standing beneath a banner proclaiming, “Healthy Planet and Good Jobs.” Separately, Erikson told The Nation, “The free market can work but it needs to be regulated. We want our politicians to figure out how to transition to a clean energy economy. You can’t just shut down coal mines and power plants without knowing where the green jobs to replace them will come from. And we’re going to hold them accountable on that.”
Mike Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, reminded the union rally that labor and environmentalists weren’t always on opposite sides. “I’m proud to be here today because we know it was the labor movement that put up the bail money to get Martin Luther King Jr. out of the Birmingham jail,” said Brune, whose organization was the first to attempt to revive, in the 1990s, ties between environmental and labor activism. “And it was the labor movement that provided money to organize the first Earth Day in 1970 and to build the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. And we know that the same companies that are poisoning our air and water are also poisoning our democracy. So we at the Sierra Club stand with you for a clean energy economy that puts millions of people to work.”
Many veteran activists of the climate movement expressed the same overjoyed reaction to this march as did Annie Leonard, the new executive director of Greenpeace USA, who recently returned to the organization after eighteen years away: finally, the climate movement is getting serious about building political power. “The organizing for this march looks very different than most environmental organizing twenty years ago did,” she told The Nation. “This march is led by environmental justice groups and includes nurses, farmers, labor organizers, young people and activists working on immigrant rights, economic equality and indigenous rights. The movement is more broad and inclusive than ever. If we environmentalists had done real power-building work like this twenty years ago, we wouldn’t be in this climate mess we’re in now. The window for action is closing, but a day like this gives me hope that we’ll make it.”
“Today is enormously exciting, not just the size of the march but how many young people are here,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said. “It shows that young people are not turned off to politics. And given the power of corporations in our country, the only way we’ll get the change we need on climate change or any other issue is if millions of people take to the streets and demand change.”
You can find video and photos of the People’s Climate March, and its sister demonstrations around the world, at the march website: peoplesclimate.org. But for additional flavor of what it was like on the street, here is a baker’s dozen of some of the signs and banners on display:
“If the climate were a bank, it would have been saved.”
“If it’s melted, it’s ruined,” displayed next to a huge Mother Earth float, courtesy of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream.
“Got Kids?”
“Compost Capitalism”
“Climate Change Affects Us Most” and “We Didn’t Cause This Mess,” carried by children marching with the Kids and Families contingent.
“Our Demands Are Not Radical”
“Act Like You Live Here”
“Dumbledore Wouldn’t Let This Happen”
“Rising Tides, Rising Rents, Rising People”
“Another Teamster for Green Jobs”
“Teach Our Youth Science, They Will Need It”
“It’s Sunday, I’m Missing Football, This Shit Is Important”
“Tax Carbon, Pay People”
Read Next: Naomi Klein explains how climate change can be a people’s shock.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Tom Steyer’s Response to the Keystone XL Final Environmental Impact Statement

by Tom Steyer, EcoWatch, February 1, 2014

tsteyerbwFirst of all, this is President Obama’s decision, and the State Department’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is just an input. So we don’t have an answer yet, and the fight is far from over. I remain hopeful that the President will, in fact, apply the test for Keystone he established in his speech at Georgetown University: that the project cannot be approved if it increases the amount of carbon pollution being put into our air, which it does. I trust the President is aware of the opportunity for America to show leadership on this critical issue, and that he will be mindful of the importance of doing right by our children by tackling climate change head on.

The FEIS is based on the flawed premise that Canadian tar sands oil will be developed no matter what—a tired talking point pushed by TransCanada and the oil industry. This is no surprise given that the contractor hired to evaluate the environmental risks of the project has direct ties to TransCanada and oil lobbying groups. But the truth is that Keystone XL is key to unlocking the Canadian tar sands—and all of the carbon pollution that comes with it. By expanding capacity and reducing costs, Keystone XL would spur investment in the tar sands and enable the oil industry to ramp up production at an irreversible rate, with potentially devastating impacts on the global climate. In June, the President drew a line in the sand when he said the pipeline would only be approved if “the project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Keystone XL fails the President’s climate test.

The pipeline also poses enormous economic and environmental risks to America’s heartland, threatening our farms, towns and drinking water. And what do the American people get in return? Higher gas prices in the Midwest, only 35 permanent jobs and none of the profits. If Keystone XL is approved, the real winners will be the oil industry and foreign investors like China who stand to profit from more production of this dirty oil.

As I said, our efforts to defeat the Keystone XL pipeline will continue. I hope President Obama will take a hard look at the facts before he makes a decision on this enormously risky project. In his State of the Union address this week, the President pledged to “act with more urgency” to combat the threat of climate change. His first step should be to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

John Podesta, Obama's New Special Adviser, Is Outspoken Foe of Keystone XL and Tar Sands

'Oil extraction from tar sands is polluting, destructive, expensive, and energy intensive,' John Podesta said in a speech in 2010.


WASHINGTON—By asking John Podesta to come to the White House as a special counselor at a time of turmoil and tough choices, President Obama has created an unusually close tie to an outspoken critic of the Keystone XL pipeline and the Canadian tar sands it would carry.

Podesta is a Washington policy insider who was Bill Clinton's chief of staff and whose Center for American Progress, or CAP, is an influential voice of liberalism. He has kept climate change high on his agenda for years and will continue to do so in the White House, reported The New York Times, which broke the news of his new assignment.

His arrival comes just as the decision on TransCanada's proposal to build a controversial pipeline to deliver tar sands crude from Alberta across the midsection of the United States approaches a critical turning point: the completion of a final environmental impact statement by the State Department. That will be followed by a crucial 90-day period in which Obama must decide whether the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest.

Environmentalists who oppose the pipeline view the decision as a crucial test of Obama’s determination to tackle the problem of climate change.

Podesta has allied himself closely with some of them, including the wealthy investor Tom Steyer, who has been mobilizing opposition to the project. They appeared together at CAP's conference to celebrate its 10th anniversary this fall.

Just last week, CAP co-sponsored a daylong conference with Steyer's team in Georgetown to argue that the pipeline could not pass the litmus test Obama set back in June—that the Keystone could only be approved if it didn't significantly exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions.

From the moment Obama set that standard in a June speech, Podesta seems to have recognized the opportunity to reverse a tide that some had seen as flowing Keystone's way. On Twitter, he called the news a "huge announcement."

The Keystone decision is not by any means the main reason Obama sought his help at this time. Podesta's range of policy expertise is very broad, and Obama is turning to him for help with many challenges—from the implementation of the health care overhaul to the problem of income inequality that Obama has been trying to elevate on the national agenda. These, not the KXL, will dominate their work on what the White House sees as legacy issues.

But climate change is another such legacy issue. And as the various interests in the Keystone decision make their final arguments at the White House, Podesta could not be better positioned as a particularly close adviser to voice his own views—and to debunk the arguments of those who favor the tar sands pipeline.

Just as he arrives, other key environmental aides are leaving: Heather Zichal, the White House climate czar, Nancy Sutley, the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Gary Guzy, Sutley's deputy. (Zichal is replaced by her deputy, Dan Utech.)

A Long Public Record
Podesta's views on the tar sands and the Keystone pipeline have been clear for years.
In a 2010 speech entitled "The Dirty Truth About Tar Sands," he said that "oil extraction from tar sands is polluting, destructive, expensive, and energy intensive." He was speaking to a conference addressing ways that the industry might be made more "green," which he called highly unrealistic.

After Obama turned down TransCanada's initial proposal for the pipeline in 2011, saying that there wasn't enough time to make an informed decision under a tight deadline imposed by Congress, Podesta and Steyer jointly wrote an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal saying that the pipeline was unnecessary. They based their argument on the fact that oil production in the Bakken and other U.S. oilfields was growing so fast that the Canadian supplies were becoming irrelevant.

"While conservatives have been fighting to build a pipeline to import more foreign oil and deepen U.S. dependence, the U.S. is poised to transform its energy portfolio by developing domestic resources—renewable and mineral—that will let it become a net exporter of clean energy and energy technology in this decade," they wrote.

Podesta's operation publishes the blog ClimateProgress, whose founding editor Joe Romm has been a consistent voice against the Keystone; the blog was expanded significantly this year in another signal of how seriously CAP takes the issue. Other members of the CAP policy staff, like Daniel Weiss, its director of climate policy, also play leading roles in marshaling opposition to the pipeline.

The group's detailed policy prescriptions include urging the Obama administration to put into effect a policy drafted several years ago to explicitly require that the greenhouse gas emissions and climate consequences of all major federal actions be thoroughly reviewed under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. That could have required the State Department’s environmental impact statement on the Keystone to give stricter scrutiny to the line, for example by emphasizing the cumulative effects of emissions, or by demanding some form of offsetting mitigation.

When asked about Podesta's appointment, TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said: "It's not our place to comment on potential staff changes at the White House, but as a company, we remain focused on the regulatory process that the U.S. Department of State has been overseeing for more than five years. We continue to remain focused on the final stage of our Presidential Permit review where the fundamental question is going to be if the Keystone XL Pipeline is in America's national interest. We continue to believe that it is."

But Podesta's move to the White House immediately ricocheted around Twitter as an omen of which way Obama's pipeline decision would go. "Can't see this as good for Keystone XL pipeline," wrote David McLaughlin, who led Canada’s National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy until it was disbanded by the Conservative government.

In fact, the pipeline decision is still up in the air. Podesta surely will be heard in the inner councils to come. But in the end he, like Secretary of State John Kerry, will not own the decision—Obama will.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Tom Steyer: stop Keystone XL and promote permanent clean energy jobs

Readers, sigh..., I am posting this although Tom Steyer is a huge back of natural gas (i.e., fracking).  We hope he will soon change his mind since for "business reasons" fracking is now non-economical.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Tom Steyer, NexGen: Keystone XL bad economics for the U.S. -- Canadian oil will travel through America not to America



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3BkrAI1KqY
 
The Hill:

Billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer is launching a four-part, $1 million ad buy that attacks the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

The former hedge fund chief’s first ad, slated to run during today’s political talk shows, alleges Keystone wouldn’t help the U.S. because the oil would be  “refined and loaded on ships to be sold overseas to countries like China.”

“Foreign countries will get more access to more oil to make more products to sell back to us, undercutting our economy and our workers,” the ad states.

The Obama administration is weighing whether to grant a cross-border permit for TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline, which would bring oil from Canadian oil sands projects to Gulf Coast refiners.

Keystone pipeline supporters have pushed back against activists’ allegations [not really allegations, more like the facts] that Keystone would largely be an export pipeline, either for crude it carries or refined products made with it.

 http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/09/new-ad-clobbers-keystone-economics/