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
gas
10 XR Protesters Blockade UK Site to Stop 'Blatantly Unlawful Oil Extraction'
"This new normal isn't static, it will get worse as we continue to burn more fossil fuels," one protester said.
Oct 14, 2024
Ten Extinction Rebellion protesters blockaded an English oil and gas field on Monday in support of a landmark U.K. Supreme Court ruling that was supposed to stop drilling at the site.
In June of this year, the court ruled that the Surrey County Council failed to consider the climate consequences of burning the oil obtained from a site near London's Gatwick Airport when it granted U.K. Oil and Gas (UKOG) permission to exploit the so-called Horse Hill oil extraction site. Despite the ruling, however, UKOG continues to pump oil.
"The Supreme Court decision was a beacon of light in a world of dire climate news," protester Helen Burnett, a Parish priest who lives within five miles of the site, said in a statement. "With U.K. crop yields plummeting, flooding at scale on every continent, droughts, intense hurricanes supercharged by a hotter sea, one after the other. This new normal isn't static, it will get worse as we continue to burn more fossil fuels. I urge Surrey's officers and councilors to respect the Supreme Court decision, and order UKOG to stop work at Horse Hill immediately."
"It's really quite simple. Surrey County Council need to tell Mr. Sanderson to stop all activity at Horse Hill until UKOG have planning permission."
A small group of protesters sat in front of the site to block any vehicles from entering, holding signs reading, "Surrey County Council, Stop UKOG Flouting Supreme Court Horse Hill Ruling," "[UKOG] CEO Stephen Sanderson Stop Pumping Oil Unlawfully at Horse Hill," and "No More Planet Killing Emissions—Time to Restore Horse Hill to Nature."
At stake in the Supreme Court case is whether or not a governing body, when considering approval for a new fossil fuel site, must consider only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced directly by activities at the site or whether it must account for the climate pollution produced by the oil, gas, or coal once extracted.
When the Surrey County Council granted UKOG permission to drill for 3.3 million metric tons of crude oil for 20 years at Horse Hill, it only weighed the impacts of the former, prompting Extinction Rebellion member Sarah Finch to sue. Finch argued that 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations required review of downstream emissions. After an appeals court failed to reach a decision, the Supreme Court agreed.
In a June 20 judgment, Lord Leggatt wrote:
It is agreed that the project under consideration involves the extraction of oil for commercial purposes for a period estimated at 20 years in quantities sufficient to make an EIA mandatory. It is also agreed that it is not merely likely, but inevitable, that the oil extracted will be sent to refineries and that the refined oil will eventually undergo combustion, which will produce GHG emissions. It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate. The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are.
At the time, the ruling was considered a major win for the climate movement, with the potential to halt larger scale projects such as the Rosebank and Jackdaw North Sea fossil fuel fields.
"The words 'Finch ruling' now invoke dread in oil, coal, and gas company boardrooms," The Times wrote in September.
Yet the ruling will have no impact if companies like UKOG simply ignore the courts and local authorities don't stop them.
"Stephen Sanderson, CEO of failing oil company UKOG, is making Surrey County Council look weak and ineffectual in the face of blatantly unlawful oil extraction," said protester James Knapp from Dorking, who has three children.
Knapp also expressed concerns that UKOG's attitude of lawlessness could extend to other issues at Horse Hill:
The site has been plagued by incidents in its short history including a rig fire, local residents and grazing horses affected by noxious fumes, hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage from the earthquake swarm which coincided with oil workers returning to the site, and a fine from the Health and Safety Executive for irregularities which left the oil well vulnerable in blow out situations.
Another protester, 69-year-old retired teacher Jackie Macey, summed it up: "It's really quite simple. Surrey County Council need to tell Mr. Sanderson to stop all activity at Horse Hill until UKOG have planning permission. They will be enforcing a Supreme Court judgment and no reasonable person could possibly criticize them for that, so I urge them now to do what they should have done as soon as the Supreme Court decision was handed down; instruct them to stop the works now."
As to what should happen to the site going forward?
"If a new planning application does ever arrive from UKOG, we will be making the case that the site should be restored to nature," Macey said. "Enough is enough!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Don’t Need Fossil Fuel Peaker Plants
New Englanders are fighting for a just transition to a better electric system.
Sep 12, 2024
Our electric system is intentionally complicated. We are expected to receive our bills from the electric companies every month, pay without question, and have little say in what that money is used for.
In the New England, New York, and PJM regions, a portion of our electric bills every month goes to a mysterious “auction” in the “capacity markets” that promise power plants funding into the future even if they never operate. We are told this is the system we have to work within to ensure reliable energy. But that is not true.
Just because a system is in place does not mean it is the best way to operate. When I was in elementary school I learned how to use the lattice method for multiplication. My Mom taught me long multiplication. Both methods got me to the solution to the equation. So why can’t our electric grid think like this?
The time is now—for energy efficiency, community conservation, and clean energy in New England and beyond.
Our regional electric grid operators here in New England, ISO New England (ISO-NE), oversee a process called the “Forward Capacity Auction,” which enables fossil fuel power plants across the region to stay in operation. They claim that this market approach will ensure certain energy sources can stay on our grid for backup energy. Instead of being a mechanism for reliable energy supplies though, this auction has become a huge waste of money and an enabler of climate chaos. Right now this system keeps fossil fuel peaker plants online. Peaker plants are those oil, methane gas, and coal burning plants that are only called on during peak energy usage—like during a cold snap or heatwave—and thus only get turned on a handful of days a year. These plants currently get hundreds of thousands of dollars to mostly sit idle.
This doesn’t have to be the way we handle our electric grid. We can do better—we just have to imagine better.
The No Coal No Gas campaign showed up at the fossil fuel peaker plants in New Hampshire this August to demand a transition to clean energy, community conservation, and a better grid system. There are three peaker plants in New Hampshire without closing dates that are really harming our communities: Newington Station on the Piscataqua River, Lost Nation in Groveton, and White Lake in Tamworth. Our electric bills gave each of these plants hundreds of thousands of dollars last year despite the fact that they ran just a handful of times (10-15% of our bills fund the system this money came from). These three plants burn oil, methane gas, or jet fuel on the occasion that they do get turned on, resulting in all sorts of pollution impacting the communities they inhabit.
The thing is, if we changed the way we managed our energy grid, we wouldn’t need these peaker plants. They could easily be replaced with solar and battery storage. The regional electric grid operators could prioritize more immediate energy conservation resources both from the public and from large energy users to reduce the peaker energy load so that we don’t need as much backup on the grid. We could improve energy efficiency across the board to reduce the amount of energy we need as a region, even with an increase in electric vehicles. We could decrease electricity bills for people across the region if we didn’t need to promise all this money to peaker plants.
We can have clean energy and reliable energy—this isn’t a compromising situation. Transitioning off of fossil fuels does not make our energy less reliable—especially when those fossil fuels cause the devastating storms we’ve seen lately that cost a whole lot of money to recover from. On top of that, most of the failures on our grid, including huge price spikes like what the grid saw on December 24, 2022, were caused by fossil fuel plants. This situation is reflective of the problems other regional grids across the country are facing as climate change gets worse.
So what’s the hold up? ISO-NE board and staff members who say, “This is the way it’s been.” Elected officials and Granite Shore Power (who owns the New Hampshire peaker plants) who want to protect the profits of fossil fuel corporations. Grid operators who claim that electric grid management needs to be “fuel neutral” in their policies. The fact is, we need to stop thinking inside these tiny boxes we’ve given ourselves. If new ideas are not working in the system we have, it means it’s time to change the system.
When I watched friends drop a massive banner down the side of Newington’s smokestack just a few weeks ago, I thought about how they were not stuck in what doesn’t seem possible. Instead, they acted. They didn’t think a 175-foot banner would be impossible to make. They just made it. They showed the owners of that peaker plant that we can do difficult things, including transitioning off of oil and gas. They showed all of us that we can imagine a better future together.
I walk into energy regulatory meetings with experts even though the people there made those spaces inaccessible to the general public and community organizers. I have been working to understand the complexities of the energy system even though the people I’m challenging to think outside the system don’t want me there. I know a transition to clean energy and justice-focused solutions to the climate crisis won’t happen overnight, but I also know that people in positions of power are dragging their feet in the fossil-fueled past.
We don’t need fossil fuel peaker plants when much simpler solutions to energy reliability exist. The time is now—for energy efficiency, community conservation, and clean energy in New England and beyond. I know we can build an energy system that works for the everyday people who this grid is meant to serve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Massive Climate Coalition Demands Biden Kill LNG Export Licenses
"We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction," one frontline advocate said.
Sep 09, 2024
A coalition of more than 250 climate, environmental, and frontline community organizations on Monday urged U.S. President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to reject all requests for approval to export liquefied natural gas to non-fair trade agreement countries.
The demand came in the form of a letter following a recent ruling by Trump-appointed District Judge James D. Cain Jr. to lift a pause that Biden's Department of Energy had placed on new LNG export approvals while it updates the criteria it uses to determine whether these exports are in the public interest. It also comes a week after the DOE signed off on the export of LNG from an offshore New Fortress Energy plant near Altamira, Mexico.
"After the hottest summer on record, on track to be the hottest year, it's clear that expanding climate-heating gas exports is not in the public interest," Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "There's no reason on Earth to approve more LNG exports that lock in decades of damage to the climate, human communities, and imperiled species like Rice's whales. The Department of Energy must reject every single one."
"With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety."
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the many signatories of Monday's letter, backed by dozens of large national groups as well as scores of smaller, more local organizations. Other groups include Earthworks, Food and Water Watch, Oil Change International, the Sunrise Movement, Public Citizen, several branches of 350.org and Extinction Rebellion, Port Arthur Community Action Network, and the Vessel Project of Louisiana.
In the letter, the groups applauded the administration for instituting the pause on approvals in the first place and for acknowledging that the data it used to determine whether exports were in the public interest was "outdated and insufficient."
Since the court ruling leaves the department without a deadline for updating its data, the groups urged the DOE "to continue seeking the best available information on the impact of LNG exports on the public, the environment, and economy."
"When the department completes its analyses, the weight of evidence will make it clear that new LNG exports are not in the public interest and that all pending applications to export LNG must be rejected," the groups wrote.
With the world "on the verge" of exceeding the 1.5°C limit enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement, the coalition warned against new infrastructure and export policies that will only exacerbate the global emissions crisis at a critical moment in history.
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next year, and then steeply decline, for our planet to have the best chance of avoiding this fate," the letter reads. "The only way world leaders can avoid this moral and political failure is to work together to end fossil fuel production."
This goal has been hampered by the record rise in U.S. gas production facilitated by the fracking boom. Whereas global gas production had been predicted to be on the wane, it is now expanding instead. At the same time, new research has shown that, due to methane leaks, gas is not a "bridge fuel" to cleaner energy but in fact just as detrimental to the climate as coal.
Another major concern raised by LNG opponents is the local pollution generated by export facilities. Many of these new facilities are located in, under construction in, or slated for the Gulf South, which is already overburdened by toxic emissions from oil, gas, and petrochemical production.
"As a mom living in a community surrounded by industry, I feel the weight of every decision made about our environment," Vessel Project founder and director Roishetta Ozane said in a statement. "With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety. The Department of Energy has the power to reject these LNG export permits, and it's crucial they do so. We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction."
The letter suggests the broad environmental movement, both at the local level and nationally, is united behind the demand to halt the LNG buildout as the groups applauded Biden's efforts to curb exports thus far but also asked him to go further.
"We initially urged you to pause approvals of LNG exports," they wrote to Biden and Granholm, "we fiercely celebrated and defended your decision to do so in January, and now we write to let you know we continue to stand behind you as we insist that you take the next step of stopping new LNG exports."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular