Months ago, forest destroyer Sinar Mas told industry peers that it would formally respond to issues raised by a Greenpeace report.  After mountains of bad press and losing business, many had hoped the palm oil, paper, and coal giant would use this moment to come clean, admit mistakes and move forward to improve its business.

Unfortunately, Sinar Mas is not showing any signs of doing that.

Sinar Mas was meant to publish an audit into its own activities by the end of June.  They baulked and postponed until late July.  Now, they are saying it will be August 10th.

In the meantime, Sinar Mas has hired PR firm Bell Pottinger to help present their greenwash.  Bell Pottinger recently did public relations work for Trafigura, the oil trading company who was recently convicted and fined for illegally transporting toxic waste to the Ivory Coast.  Classy clientele!

Anticipating that Sinar Mas will try to greenwash the results of their flawed audit, Greenpeace just released (more!) fresh evidence that notorious forest destroying practices continue unabated and in direct violation of the company’s own environmental commitments on protecting forests and peatlands.  The report, Empires of Destruction, contains evidence that Sinar Mas is clearing rainforest and peatland areas on the island of Borneo.  Further photographic evidence shows Sinar Mas recently cleared rainforest orangutan habitat.  While Sinar Mas talks about protecting rainforests and peatlands, its actions speak louder, and tell a different story.

But, it is not just what Sinar Mas has done in the past that should cause alarm – it is what it plans to do in the future.  In addition the report details how Sinar Mas plans to expand its empire of destruction even further.  Last week, the Sinar Mas palm oil division, Golden Agri Resources, confirmed plans to expand into an additional 2.5 million acres

With wildlife like the orangutan and Sumatran tiger being pushed towards extinction, the Paradise Forests cannot afford to continue to be the victim of Sinar Mas’s ever expanding empire.

The good news is that Nestle, Kraft, Unilever, HSBC, and other prominent companies are distancing themselves from Sinar Mas.  Until Sinar Mas is no longer involved in destroying rainforests and peatlands, other companies who still purchase from them – like fast food companies Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts and Pizza Hut – should take similar measures.  Take a moment now to tell those companies to stop serving up forest destruction!

For the forest,

-Rolf

Given that global warming pollution has officially fallen from the agenda of the Senate, legislative proposals on the table to reduce the political, economic, and environmental impact of the oil industry provide an opportunity for Congress to slightly vindicate itself. On Friday the House passed legislation that finally removes special protections that oil companies have received for decades, such as limitation on liability for the damage caused by oil spills, exemptions from environmental review, and the ability to avoid US safety standards altogether. In light of the BP oil disaster, passage of these policies should be a forgone conclusion.

The Senate is expected to vote soon, maybe tomorrow, on it’s own package of policies in response to the Gulf disaster. The House passed the bill 209 to 193. With an astounding 30 Reps not voting, including 21 GOP, it is possibly a good sign for the Senate vote this week, as it may mean many conservative Representatives felt it politically impossible to vote no.

At the same time, it was not a disappointment, but a relief, that the Senate Majority Leader concluded the Senate should take a break from proposals to cap global warming pollution. It is shocking that this announcement to end the effort to solve the world's most dire and pressing problem comes with five months left in 2010. However, the Senate level of ambition to pass effective climate policy has waned from weak to damaging. With the gluts of industry giveaways, the latest bill drafts proposing a carbon cap exemplify that the legislative effort is carjacked by polluting industry lobbyists. If they have truly stopped trying for now, Congress must not think that they can simply pick up where they left off, because they are nowhere near producing legislation to overhaul America's economy to become modern, competitive, and sustainable.

This election season, members of Congress owe it to their children's future to use their campaigns to build momentum for energy policy that keeps the planet livable. What this Congress will have failed to produce is a set of policies that contains three broad elements that dissipated from legislative proposals in the Senate.

First, Congress must campaign for slashing global warming pollution in a manner that is fast and furious. We need to do whatever it takes. This is not about balancing the required efforts and bail outs of polluting industry. It is about taking deadly serious the pollution that made 2010 the hottest year on record. It is about stopping perverse subsidies that provide seven times more public funding for coal, oil, and gas than for renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal.

Second, Congress must campaign for significant financial assistance to help poor countries adapt to the devastating climate changes occurring already, and to develop cleanly, so that our efforts at home to protect the planet are not in vain. International climate financing is part of a fair and reasonable commitment from the United States, a wealthy country with the greatest historical share of global warming pollution, and is vitally necessary for achieving an effective global climate change agreement.

Third, Congress must campaign to protect and encourage the use of all existing tools for reducing global warming pollution, which includes laws they passed decades ago like the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is the reason why the administration can now require long-overdue pollution abatement technologies for the nation's dirtiest smokestacks, and why efficiency standards for America's cars will not be pitifully behind requirements in China. Members of Congress who are serious about stopping climate catastrophe will provide encouragement and support for other public officials, such as in state legislatures, the EPA, and the White House, to act quickly on this global emergency.

While some news reports attempt to downplay the amount of damage that has been done, it's clear that the Gulf oil disaster is one of the worst environmental tragedies in US history. This catastrophe has also further revealed the extraordinary extent of the oil industry’s influence on our government. Many questions remain unanswered about government communications with BP and other oil companies, underwater oil plumes, impacts to marine wildlife, chemical dispersants, oil drilling safety regulation, and more.

We've submitted 27 Freedom of Information Act requests to multiple government agencies and two Public Records Act Requests to the offices of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. The scope of these FOIA requests were derived from our ongoing field research as well as tips from local activists and reporters.  

The following is a list of the requests we've filed. In parentheses after each item is the agency with whom the request was filed (click on any of the agencies to view a PDF of the request).

Wildlife Impacts

• Details of any and all mammal spotter flights conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Gulf region (USFSW)

• Any and all chain of custody forms for deceased wildlife in the Gulf region (USFWS)

• Details regarding turtles being killed in controlled oil burns in the Gulf region (USCG, NOAA, USFWS)

• Details of U.S. Navy flights contracted for whale and dolphin sightings in the Gulf region (Navy)

• Details of any and all communications or information regarding any of 23 endangered or threatened species of concern in the Gulf region including sperm whales and sea turtles (NOAA, USCG)

• Details of any communications about “carcass collection facilities” in the Gulf region (USFWS)

• Details of any communications between the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and BP concerning dead mammals or marine life in the Gulf region (USFWS)

• Details of Natural Resource Damage Assessment flights (USFWS)

Oil drilling safety regulation

• Details of communication between the United States Coast Guard and ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, and/or ConocoPhillips concerning the safety of oil rigs in the Gulf and/or the term  “blowout preventers” (USCG)

• Details of communications between the Minerals Management Service and the Offshore Operators Committee Deep Spills Working Group. (BOEMRE)

• Details of any information concerning the 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf (BOEMRE)

• Details of all internal communications regarding the 23 blowouts that have occurred on oil rigs in the Gulf since 2006. (BOEMRE)

• Details of all communications between MMS staffers K. Stauffer and J. McCarroll who contributed to deepwater environmental assessments (BOEMRE)

• Communications with USGS staff member Keith A. Kvenvolden concerning natural oil seeps (USGS)

• Details of violations and inspections and the certification process of the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port facility (USCG)|

Chemical dispersants

• Internal communications within and between the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and BP concerning directives on dispersant use and exemptions granted to BP by the Coast Guard (EPA, USCG)

• Details of the effectiveness of sub-sea dispersant application, how the Environmental Protection Agency has monitored BP’s use of dispersants, and the point at which dispersants have a greater environmental impact than leaked oil (EPA)

• Flight records of C-130 aircraft carrying chemical dispersants (FAA, USCG)

• Records of dispersant-carrying aircraft with specific call signs flying out of Stennis International Airport (FAA)

Cleanup operations

• Details of communications regarding BP employees or contractors and their authority or ability to police public lands (USCG)

Underwater oil plumes

• Internal communications from NOAA missions to search for underwater oil plumes (NOAA)

• Details of all meetings and correspondence between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and BP regarding underwater oil plumes (NOAA)

Communication Between Oil Companies and State Offices

• Details of any and all internal and external communications between Governor Bobby Jindal or any of his staff and the following companies: BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, and/or the American Petroleum Institute (Office of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal)

• Details of any and all internal and external communications between Governor Haley Barbour or any of his staff and the following companies: BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, and/or the American Petroleum Institute (Office of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour)

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just issued a report declaring 2000 to 2009 to be the hottest decade on record and the evidence of man-made global warming to be "undeniable." Around 300 scientists from nearly 50 countries contributed to the NOAA report, which tracked 11 different indicators of climate change and found that seven of them – including air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, sea level, and humidity – are indeed rising.

Moreover, according to Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK's Met Office, one of the agencies participating in the NOAA study, “The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases.”

Yet within this context, a flak from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Myron Ebell, still has the gall to say, "It's clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is."

This is what the climate deniers’ tactics basically amount to: Covering their ears and singing. “La la la I can’t hear you everything is fine we need oil and coal lalala.”

The worst part is, it works. That’s why we have to push back.

The science is settled: Global warming is happening and human activities are causing it. But the reporter who wrote this article on CNN's website didn’t bother factchecking Ebell whatsoever, meaning Ebell got away with repeating the Dirty Lie. We need you to help set the record straight.

Why would Ebell be willing to go on record ignoring hard scientific data with blatantly false talking points? Hm, let’s see… His employer, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has taken buckets of money from oil companies like Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, and Texaco. CEI has also hosted events sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute and Arch Coal. Think that maybe has something to do with Mr. Ebell’s skepticism? At the very least, these egregious conflicts of interest should be pointeded out to readers, as they should invalidate any “impartial” or “expert” opinion Ebell may have been able to provide.

Here are a few links you can drop in the comments of the article on CNN to make sure future readers know the full story about Myron Ebell and the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

Competitive Enterprise Institute – Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group
ExxonSecrets.org Factsheet: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI
Competitive Enterprise Institute on SourceWatch.org

Aurthur JD writes from Dalian in China...

I arrived in Dalian on the day of the funeral for firefighter Zhang Liang, who drowned beneath the thick crude when his crew jumped into the ocean — without safety gear — to attempt, in vain, to fix an underwater pipe. Our lead photographer, Jiang He, who by now has reached legendary status globally for capturing the final seconds of Zhang's life, continued to cover the very emotional moments of this oil spill disaster.

Colleagues described how over 30,000 people lined the streets of Dalian to honor Zhang. And judging from Jiang He’s photos, there were many outpourings of grief for his untimely death, at the age of 25. People talked about whispers of anger from Dalian residents and firefighters against the corporations responsible for this tragic human and environmental disaster. And of their utter callousness: in the evening of the same day, a fancy celebratory dinner was held in one of Dalian’s classiest hotels for the leaders of Dalian PetroChina. A large banner with grammatically incorrect Chinese welcomed them to the “fire rescue live event.”



See more images from the Dalian oil spill

--Aurthur

The spill in Dalian is yet another reminder that oil is a dirty business, and the only way to stop future spills is to leave the oil in the ground. Enough is enough. Sign our petition to Congress telling them that now is the time for a permanent ban on ALL new drilling.

I'm back home now after nearly two weeks of working as a boat driver for Greenpeace in the Gulf.  This was my second time in the Gulf to help with work related to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.  What I experienced this time was entirely different from my first trip last
month.

Last month, I saw deeply-oiled marshes and mangroves.  There were lots of oiled birds; entire nests were slathered in oil. I witnessed hundreds of dolphins swimming in oil-slicked waters.  Now this time, a little over a month later, the oil slicks are nearly gone!  In traveling the Gulf from Louisiana to Alabama, I hardly saw an oil slick at all. All I saw was an ever-present light sheen in the water. What happened?

BP has poured about two million gallons of Corexit oil dispersant into the Gulf.  Obviously the stuff works, because it's hard to see the oil visually any more.  As a result, the Gulf states are reopening their beaches and recreational fishing, and the pressure is on to reopen
commercial fishing.

The thing is, the water is now toxic.  Here's a clip from a local news station showing the amount of oil that's in the water as a result of Corexit:

The effect of using Corexit is that the oil doesn't float on the surface of the water now. Instead, it's dissolved into the water. This means it can't be skimmed, and also that it flows with the water current in addition to the wind. The oil is now spreading around the Gulf in such a way that it can't be collected.  In addition to all that, Corexit has never before been used in any quantity approaching this level. The Gulf is now one massive experiment.

It was particularly disturbing to me to see children playing in the water while oil clean-up crews were on the same beach a few hundred feet away, collecting tar balls. It's hard to watch because the water looks safe, but isn't.

Because of all this, how we witness this tragedy has now changed. Instead of seeing oiled shorelines, we'll now see the effects through water sample testing. It's a more difficult message to convey, because things are starting to *appear* okay. To the contrary, the disaster is
only beginning. We'll be living with a fundamentally-changed Gulf ecosystem for decades to come.

Let's work together to create a better future for our children by supporting an Energy Revolution!

Check out today's New York Magazine article on the second richest man in New York, and richest climate denier on the planet, David Koch:

The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York's second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party's wallet.

The best pull quote is this:

Global warming could be good for the planet, Koch says. "A far greater land area will be available to produce food."

...from this paragraph, which shows Greenpeace got his billionaire attention this spring:

David Koch is deeply antagonistic to the Obama administration. He fought the health-care bill, and the financial-regulation measure that was passed last week ("Everyone I know in the financial world is terrified by the powers it gives the federal government"). He also opposes the president's climate-change proposals. In his office, Koch showed me a photocopied flyer Greenpeace had produced with sketches of him and Charles below the words wanted for climate crimes and shook it in the air. Koch Industries' emissions, Koch told me, are far less than legally required. "And yet they're attacking us as environmental criminals," he said. "Wanting to put me and Charles in jail." Koch says he's not sure if global warming is caused by human activities, and at any rate, he sees the heating up of the planet as good news. Lengthened growing seasons in the northern hemisphere, he says, will make up for any trauma caused by the slow migration of people away from disappearing coastlines. "The Earth will be able to support enormously more people because a far greater land area will be available to produce food," he says.

Wow. What a load of... And it goes uncontested by the NY Mag author, Andrew Goldman, who seems to write mostly "people" pieces for the magazine — on Bette Midler, Martha Stewart's daugher, Annie Leibovitz — so he can't be expected to know a big ol' global warming lie when he hears it. But we know it's a Dirty Lie — and if you want to do something about it, please go to the article right now and call Mr. Koch out for his attempts to downplay the seriousness of global warming just so he can keep raking money in hand over fist.

Here's a video about the Greenpeace campaign Mr. Koch was referring to:

Greenpeace issued a report on the Koch Brothers in March 2010 (Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine) and another report last week on Bill Koch, David's twin brother who is waging a campaign to kill Cape Wind, which will be the first offshore wind farm in the nation, just because he doesn't want to look at it from his mansion.

By the way, Greenpeace has relaunched our PolluterWatch website with profiles of all of the Kochs.

New York Magazine got trusted inside access to David Koch (who rarely gives interviews), and provides a detailed biography of the three twisted billionaire Koch brothers. Allowing the magazine such access may have been a PR attempt to do some damage control and fend off the increasing attention the Kochs are receiving for their association with Americans for Prosperity and the radical Tea Party movement. Rachel Maddow has driven this story hard for months. Koch fought back with preemptive press releases that they have nothing to do with the Tea Baggers, but it just got them more bad press on Maddow.

Its great. The Koch legacy of shrouded political action, global warming denial and free-market, anti-government, anti-regulatory radicalism is finally, slowly being dragged out into the sunlight... Accountability is a wonderful thing, especially when it involves the filthy rich.

This post originally appeared on Huffington Post.

This morning, starting at 5.30am, teams of Greenpeace volunteers shut down 50 BP stations across London.

The teams - each named after an animal threatened by BP's reckless oil exploration - fanned out across the capital in their electric and hybrid cars, going station to station and disabling the pumps.

Why today? Because BP is expected to announce later the appointment of Bob Dudley as the company's new head to replace the gaffe-prone Tony Hayward, who led BP during the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Check out the live updates from the activists over the the Greenpeace UK site.

We want to send a strong message to BP's new boss to ditch the spin and actually move 'beyond petroleum'.

But there's more. This is also about realizing what we can achieve if we set our minds to it.

We can end the oil age. We already have the tools we need to leave it behind and move towards a clean energy future. All that's missing is the determination to make it happen fast.

Tell Congress: No new drilling, period!

ABOVE: The safety switches from the BP Stations in London that were shutdown today by Greenpeace volunteers. These were removed, operating the safety shutdown and and closing the pumps. We're going to return all the switches later but until they fit new ones at the stations, the pumps will be out of action.

This blog post comes from Lisa Vickers, a webbie at Greenpeace International.

We’ve all heard the arguments from Big Oil and King Coal: “Without coal and oil, energy and gas prices would go through the roof;” or “We have to use domestic coal and oil reserves to ensure our energy security;” and “Renewables can’t do the job, so we have to keep using fossil fuels.”

That’s the Dirty Lie: The idea, heavily promoted by coal and oil industry lobbyists and their friends in Congress, that there is no remedy for our addiction to fossil fuels. But the truth is that with today’s technology, we can continue to grow our economy while phasing out fossil fuels altogether.


Our Energy [R]evolution report lays out a roadmap for achieving a clean energy economy. It also shows that we could create over a million American jobs in the renewable energy sector alone by 2030.

So if we have the means for kicking our dirty energy habit and moving to clean, green energy, and most Americans are more than supportive, why isn’t it happening? The reason is simple: Big industry has an incredible amount of influence over our energy policy, thanks to decades of campaign contributions to the politicians who make the rules. These companies and politicians defend their planet-killing actions by saying that we need coal and oil. It’s time to call out the Dirty Lie, and break their stranglehold.

That’s where you come in. We need help watchdogging the politicians and talking heads who take money from the fossil fuels industry and then push the Dirty Lie on the American public. Whenever you catch the Dirty Lie being promoted without challenge, or find a case where someone is regurgitating fossil fuels lobbyist talking points as if they were fact, let us know. In turn, we’ll let you know when and where to help set the record straight.

There are a variety of ways you can plug in to our work to call out the Dirty Lie:

3 Ways to expose the Dirty Lie

Facebook

If you have a Facebook account you can immediately mobilize your friends to expose the dirty lie. When you find an article that repeats the lie, post it to your Facebook with a status message that says something like:

“This article claims that we can’t live without fossil fuels. That is a dirty lie! Please go to the article and leave a comment saying so.”

Twitter

If you spot the Dirty Lie in the media and want to report it via Twitter, just use the hashtag #dirtylie and make sure you link to the news piece in question. We’ll be searching for this hashtag regularly, so we’ll be sure to find it. You can regularly search for tweets with this hashtag as well, we'll use it to let you know how you can help call out the worst offenders.

Delicious

Delicious is a Social Bookmarking service that allows you to bookmark and save web pages online, share them with other people, and see what other people are bookmarking. It's perfect for the work before us of calling out the Dirty Lie!

Delicious also allows you to tag your bookmarks with a keyword. That makes it a great tool for collaboration because we can easily look up all web pages tagged with the key word “DirtyLie.”

Here’s how to help:

1) If you’re new to Delicious, the first thing you need to do is create an account. Go to https://secure.delicious.com/login and follow the instructions. If you have a yahoo account you can use that to quickly create one. If not you’ll need to create one of those too.

2) Add a bookmarklet button to your browser’s bookmark bar. This way you’ll be able to bookmark and tag articles anywhere on the web with just a click. Go to http://delicious.com/help/bookmarklets and follow the instructions for your web browser.

3) Now it’s time to start exposing the Dirty Lie by bookmarking and tagging articles. When you read articles that repeat junk science like “We’ll never have enough renewable energy to replace oil,” click your “Bookmark on Delicious” bookmarklet button you added to your browser. A pop-up window will appear. Add the tag “dirtylie” (important: keep “dirtylie” as one word) and any other tags or info you think is appropriate and click save.

4) Find other articles tagged with “dirtylie” at http://delicious.com/tag/dirtylie. You can read and comment on these articles and find other Delicious users that are exposing the Dirty Lie.

Greenpeace staff and volunteers will be keeping an eye on all of these social networks for the instances of the Dirty Lie you report. We’ll prioritize the worst offenders and let you know how you can help set the record straight.

Of course, you can also stay tuned right here on this blog to find out when and where you can help push back on the Dirty Lie. Stay tuned.

Friends at Greenpeace asked me to visit Washington this week to meet with some key Senators who will be voting soon on chemical plant security.

While admittedly only one on a list of many potential terrorist targets across this country, chemical plants must be given greater attention since from a terrorist's perspective chemical plants offer a maximum kill rate for a minimal effort. Studies have shown that just one chemical facility can place up to a million people at risk.

The facts illustrate that virtually every major populated area has one or more of the 5,000 most lethal, "high-risk"chemical facilities. Sadly, many of these facilities suffer from lax oversight, poor perimeter security, and vulnerable operating technologies.

Such facilities are open to: aerial attack (a terrorist flying a small, private plane into the facility); cyber-attack (a terrorist logging in and overtaking an operating system from a net café half way around the world); internal attack (a disgruntled employee deciding to push a button); and/or mere human error (BP's Deep Horizon oil spill proves that catastrophic accidents can and do happen).

Short of handing out HAZMAT suits and masks to every individual living within the zone of danger, there are other feasible ways to make such lethal facilities safer. One simple way is to use smart security. Smart security essentially means substituting the lethal variety of a chemical with a non-lethal alternative so that if an accidental release occurs nobody dies. Here is a list of 500+ success stories.

Admittedly, using such alternatives will initially create a nominal cost increase to the chemical company but perhaps, more importantly, smart security means no dead people for the surrounding community. Seems like a no-brainer, right?

Nope, it's not because for some in Washington it remains business as usual.

Read more at Huffington Post >>

Kristen Breitweiser, 9/11 widow and activist, is known for pressuring official Washington to provide a public accounting to the American people of what went wrong on the morning of September 11 and in the months leading up to the disaster that claimed the life of her husband and more than 3000 others.

110 million Americans live with the risk of a large-scale chemical disaster, and many of those are the brave citizens who respond when the worst happens. Ed Schlegel is a retired Fire Captain in California who has first-hand experience with responding to a chemical disaster. He was one of the brave citizens who marched into a chemical plant leaking deadly chlorine gas when the employees were running out. He is proud to protect us, but he knows than many chemical plants don't have to pose this risk.

It's hard to believe that in a post-9/11 world we are not doing everything we can to reduce terrorist targets. All over the country there are chemical and water treatment facilities that are like sitting ducks, unnecessarily storing large amounts of toxic gasses that put thousands to millions of people at risk of a disaster. As we watch the unfolding tragedy in the Gulf we should realize that hypothetical worst-case scenarios can be frighteningly underestimated when they become a reality.

The Senate Needs To Act

Congress has been wrestling with chemical security standards for over a decade and it is now the Senate's turn to pass common-sense measures that reduce the risk of a catastrophic release of poison gas. Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey (a state riddled with chemical facilities) introduced a package of legislation last week that would protect millions of Americans. Once again, though, industry is putting profits over disaster prevention by spreading unsubstantiated claims of economic disaster and job loss.

Read the entire blog at Huffington Post

We released a report back in March that exposed Charles and David Koch, the billionaire oilmen who control Koch Industries, as a chief source of funding for the climate denial machine. Well, turns out doing everything possible to delay the clean energy revolution actually runs in the family. Today we’ve released a report on Bill Koch, David’s twin brother and the principal funder of opposition to Cape Wind, the project to build the nation’s largest wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts.

A Greenpeace boat in front of the Offshore Windpark Egmond aan Zee off the Dutch coast. America is falling behind in the race to develop renewable energy technologies and utilize renewable resources. Cape Wind would be the first major offshore wind facility in the US.

Bill Koch made his fortune through his privately-held, carbon-intensive company, Oxbow (or, I should probably say, he founded Oxbow with the fortune he received from suing his brothers in 1983 after they ousted him from the family business). Oxbow Corporation, with $3.7 billion in yearly sales and over 1200 employees, sells 10 million metric tons of petroleum coke and 8 million metric tons of steam coal annually.

After making a killing peddling dirty energy, Bill Koch turns around and uses his immense personal wealth to fund the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the primary group that finds every possible way to undermine and delay Cape Wind. Even worse, he pays lobbyists through his Oxbow corporation to try and quietly kill the wind farm project altogether.

We compiled the full story behind Bill Koch into a brief dossier which you can read below or righ-click this link and choose "Save Link As" to download the PDF: Bill Koch: The Dirty Money Behind Cape Wind Opposition.

Bill Koch: The Dirty Money Behind Cape Wind Opposition

Greenpeace UK organized some serious brand damage to BP with its "Rebrand BP" logo competition and now they want us to vote on the most powerful redesign of the Big Polluter's logo. The winners will be used in Greenpeace's ongoing efforts to hold BP and the rest of Big Oil accountable for the destruction they've wrought on the Gulf and the planet.

With almost 2,000 logo submissions, the competition was an amazing success! But luckily you don't have to weed through hundreds of images to make your pick. Just check out the top picks from Greenpeace staff and cast your vote today! 

The categories are Best Rebranded Logo, Best Illustration, Best Wildlife, Best Slogan, and (my personal fav) WTF?!.

My picks are:

For Best Slogan

This design shows the spill in the context of the whole planet and our interconnected oceans. It reflects how the sea floor has been literally cracked open by thousands of oil rigs and how dangerously deep many companies have drilled. Recall that the Deepwater Horizon rig broke a record for drilling the deepest well in the world at one time. Are we at "breaking point"? Most definitely.

For Best Wildlife

No words... can do justice to the impact of this design. BP CEO Tony Hayward's phrase, "I would like my life back," juxtaposed with the oiled bird is utterly unforgettable. No wonder it's currently #1.

For Best Illustration

While not BP-specific, this design shows what drilling for oil and gas is ultimately doing to the planet better than any other, in my humble opinion.

And lastly, drumroll please... for Best Rebranded Logo (and the new face of BP) I choose: 

The Gulf and its inhabitants, from people to pelicans, will never really recover from this catastrophic oil spill. We can't spread our oiled wings and fly into a clean energy future until we kick our oil addiction, stop offshore drilling, and get our government to end subsidies for oil and coal and invest in renewable energy.

But don't just listen to me, vote for the logo redesigns you think are most powerful. Please vote for your favs and share them widely -- what better way to contribute to BP's 'image problems'?

There are many contradictions in America’s Energy Policy.  One that’s come down the pipe recently is just how little we as a society rely upon aggregated costs when determining how expensive coal is.

You’ve heard the talking points: “Coal is cheap and we’ve sure got a lot of it;” “Coal is energy security;” “Coal work provides good quality jobs for lots of folks.”

Well, not exactly.

There is a tremendous human, environmental and governmental cost to coal that is not reflected in its market price. Instead, these costs are borne by society.


Coal is only cheap if you externalize costs. For example, some externalized costs include: air quality costs (like increased rates of asthma, air opacity, poor air quality, coal fires, etc.), the costs of unsafe mining conditions (deforestation, soil erosion, black lung, and the human cost of tragedies like what we recently saw in West Virginia, and the environmental costs of disposal (leaching coal ash ponds, leaking waste destroying fish stocks and agriculture, acid mine drainage).

This is a short list in what is a very large problem. The true cost of coal is in fact very, very high.

Importantly, the debate has heated up recently on one very important aspect of the coal chain of custody: coal ash disposal.

On June 21st, the EPA gave us, the people, 90 days to comment on a federal rule for coal ash disposal. For those that don’t know, coal ash is the residue captured from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants. It contains dangerous pollutants like arsenic, mercury, lead, and a host of other heavy substances and heavy metals. In short, it’s filthy and its never been regulated.

Coal ash impoundments are routinely placed close to schools, residences, and some of the most pristine and beautiful spots in this nation. We have to tell the EPA to act responsibly for both human and environmental health and safety.

To that end, the EPA has given us two choices for its federal rule. One proposal is good and the other is very bad. The first proposal would classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, which it is. The other would classify coal ash as non-hazardous. To classify coal ash as non-hazardous would run contrary to the EPA’s own findings, playing right into the hands of polluting industry.

We need to tell the EPA that we support regulating coal ash as a "special waste" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Coal Ash is hazardous waste; it destroys communities, destroys our ecosystem, and, unless regulated, will continue to do so in increasing amounts.

The time to act on coal ash is now. Help us get to our target of 10,000 signatures by signing our petition telling the EPA to regulate coal ash as a hazardous substance.

Discussing the plight of the Steller sea lion (SSL) can be a very emotional issue because of how it impacts both the subsistence and commercial activities that Tribal Communities (TCs) may be dependent upon. However, it is worth noting that the listing of the SSL as an endangered species on the Endangered Species Act was an action taken by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and not Greenpeace.

ExxonMobil gave approximately $1.3 million to climate denial organizations last year.

This has been reported by The Times (London) after being provided information by the Greenpeace Research Department.  (The Times is unfortunately a subscription-only paper online, but a version of the story can be found syndicated at The Australian).

Greenpeace tabulated this figure - as we have done every year - from Exxon’s annual corporate Worldwide Giving Report. This year's Giving Report was way late on arrival, only published online in late June rather than the customary delivery in May before Exxon's annual general shareholders meeting. Download pdf of Worldwide Giving Report here

The Times concluded that Exxon had broken its pledges dating back to 2005 to stop payments to climate change deniers. After significant pressure from numerous bodies including ExxonSecrets, the Royal Society of London and Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, Exxon admitted its campaign of diversion.

In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report, published in May 2008, the oil giant stated,

“In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups, whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in a responsible manner.”

And indeed, over the past four years, Exxon has reduced its grants to prominent climate change deniers from the peak spending in 2005 of over $3.5M. Greenpeace’s research shows a $2.2 million reduction in annual funding to these organizations, down to roughly $1.3 million in 2009.  The number of groups known to be funded has dropped from 51 to 24 between 2005 and 2009. 

So they are down to about half the organizations and about one third of the funding.  But is that good enough?  Does this mean Exxon gets credit for finally ditching the deniers?

Clearly not. 

In 2009, Exxon was still giving significant contributions to organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Annapolis Center, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Washington Legal Foundation, each of which has a long history of climate change denial. (see complete list of 2009 funding below).

Exxon has told The Times that it is no longer funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute and the Media Research Center, the former nest of Marc Morano (ex- Sen. Inhofe staffer and now CFACT blogger). 

 The 2009 funding to these groups was:

• $100,000 to Atlas Economic Research Foundation
• $75,000 to the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
• $50,000 to the Media Research Center

We'll report on the veracity of that statement NEXT year when Exxon publishes this year's funding.

Exxon drops denial groups, but picks up denier scientists instead

Importantly, during the same period where Exxon bent to the pressure on its campaign of denial and cut all funding to hard core deniers like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and others...

Exxon began funding (at least publicly) the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in 2005. 

The 2009 ExxonMobil funding to SAO was $ 76,106, for a grand and odd total of $417,212 since 2005.  SAO is the home of Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, two scientists who have worked both together and as individuals on publishing junk science for nearly two decades.  Both have been heavily involved with many of the groups running denier campaigns today. 

For example, Soon and Baliunas’ article “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years,” concluded (incorrectly) that the warming of the globe experienced today is not at all unique and that the twentieth century is not the warmest on record, contradicting well established science. This paper was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.  The flawed peer review process that led to its publication caused several editors at Climate Research (where it was published) to resign.

In 2007, just ahead of a crucial decision by the US Federal Government about whether to list polar bears as "endangered" from climate change, Soon was funded by ExxonMobil for his work in a paper that argued that polar bears were not under threat (because climate change wasn't happening).  Soon is an expert in astrophysics, not polar bears, but Exxon saw fit to fund this work. 

Baliunas has individually authored a 1994 report entitled “The Ozone Crisis,” claiming that science denies CFC’s affect on the ozone. She has been a resident expert at the George C Marshall Institute for years, alongside other serial deniers such as S Fred Singer. 

So much more is detailed in our "Dealing in Doubt" report. It is a campaign of denial that goes back some 20 years.  It continues to this day as the stakes get higher and higher.  2010, so far, has set global records for high temperatures.   Corporate and private funders of the organizations who continue to deal in misinformation about climate science and climate policy will someday be held accountable for their destructive actions.

24 organizations in ExxonSecrets database were funded in 2009:

• AEI American Enterprise Institute     $235,000
• Atlas Economic Research Foundation     $100,000
• National Taxpayers Union Foundation     $80,000
• Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory     $76,106
• Annapolis Center     $75,000
• Communications Institute     $75,000
• National Black Chamber of Commerce     $75,000
• Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy     $75,000
• Heritage Foundation     $50,000
• Manhattan Institute     $50,000
• Media Research Center     $50,000
• ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council     $47,500
• Mercatus Center, George Mason University     $40,000
• Washington Legal Foundation     $40,000
• Center for American and International Law    $33,50
• Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment     $30,000
• American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research     $25,000
• American Spectator Foundation     $25,000
• National Association of Neighborhoods    $25,000
• Texas Public Policy Foundation    $20,000
• Federalist Society     $15,000
• Pacific Legal Foundation     $15,000
• Landmark Legal Foundation     $10,000
• Mountain States Legal Foundation     $10,000

Good news!  Thanks to people like you and the hard work of some dedicated orangutans, HSBC – the world’s largest banking and financial services company – has dropped forest-destroyer Sinar Mas from its investment management funds.

While this is bad news for Sinar Mas, which has seen a growing list of companies like Nestle, Unilever and Kraft distance themselves from the company, it is good news for Sumatran tigers, orangutans and other wildlife that call the Paradise Forests their home.

HSBC banks from California to New York were visited by activist orangutans in June.  As described in a previous post, the furry red apes monkeyed around at bank branches, amusing onlookers and drawing attention to the fact that HSBC had been passing the buck on forest destruction.  They helped flood HSBC headquarters with phone calls and email messages, adding to the excellent work of Greenpeace activists in the UK (where HSBC is headquartered).  You can read about this victory in a story published by the Guardian newspaper.

And, check out this video put together by a superstar activist in Los Angeles:

There’s still a little to be worked out with HSBC.  For example, the bank should make sure its forest policy applies to all areas of their business to avoid loopholes.  HSBC has a review scheduled for September to decide whether to exclude other palm oil companies from its Climate Change Fund, where some of those Sinar Mas shares were held.  We'll be keeping tabs on the process and will let you know how it turns out.

In the meantime, pat yourselves on the back and take a moment to enjoy a bit of good news.

For the forests,

-Rolf

Since the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig exploded and sank in April, BP has devoted inadequate resources to the oil spill response, withheld information from the American public, and denied access to spill sites to journalists. So our ship the Arctic Sunrise is heading to the Gulf to do an independent assessment of the impacts. We believe it’s way past time the full, unabridged truth about the extent and nature of this oil catastrophe was told to America and the world.


The Greenpeace ship MY Arctic Sunrise was in the Mediterranean Sea in June to help protect endangered bluefin tuna. © Gavin Parsons / Greenpeace

The reports coming out of Louisiana about cleanup workers and even local police helping BP enforce a media blockade have been nearly as frustrating as watching the oil spew into the Gulf without cease for almost three months (a hat tip is most definitely deserved here to Mother Jones’ Mac McClelland, who has been chasing this story all along and doing a great job of reporting what’s happening on the ground).

It’s in BP’s best interest to limit media access to oiled beaches and wildlife, as the more they can contain the truth about just how much damage has been done, the more they can limit their liability to pay for that damage later on. We released our ScamWow video last week to highlight this very sad and galling state of affairs.

View more images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

We’ve also had a team on the ground since the start of the disaster, tirelessly investigating local beaches and coastal ecosystems to take measure of the extent of the damage. Our team has taken copious photos and posted numerous oil spill updates on our blogs to make sure folks can see for themselves just what BP has done to the Gulf.

But BP is cracking down on public access more than ever, so we’re stepping up our efforts. The Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is on its way to the Gulf for a three-month expedition to document the true impacts of the BP Deepwater Disaster on the Gulf’s marine life and unique ecosystems. This tour is especially crucial now because even if BP has finally capped the leaking well, the crisis will continue for some time, endangering wildlife and ecosystems, destroying the region’s fisheries, and affecting the ocean for decades to come. It’s important that we not let the focus shift away from the truly extensive catastrophe that is still unfolding in the Gulf, whether more oil is spewing out of BP’s well or not.

The Sunrise will leave Tampa, Florida during the week of August 9th and visit the Florida Keys and the Dry Tortugas before approaching the wellhead during the first month of the expedition. The crew aboard the Sunrise will be examining everything from the plankton on the surface to the subsurface plumes and the deep-sea corals on the floor of the Gulf.

The Arctic Sunrise is a 50-meter long, icebreaker ship that was purchased by Greenpeace in 1995. Since then, it has peacefully protested whaling in the Southern Ocean, documented climate change and glacier melts in the Arctic, and was the first ship to circumnavigate James Ross Island in the Antarctic, which was  an impossible journey until a 200m thick ice shelf connecting the island to the Antarctic continent collapsed.
 
Throughout the expedition, the Arctic Sunrise will host independent scientists and researchers who will be looking for oiled marine mammals, turtles, fish, and sea birds. Charles Messing and Jose Lopez from Nova Southeastern University will be on board looking at sponges, which filter large quantities of water and are therefore useful for looking at sub-lethal impacts of oil and dispersants. We’ll announce other on-board scientists in the coming weeks.

So keep checking back on our blog for live interviews with our onboard campaigners and scientists, video and still photography from the Gulf, and an interactive, web-based Virtual Ship Tour that lets supporters come along for the journey. You can grab an RSS feed of our blog posts dedicated to the tour by going here: Greenpeace Gulf Oil Disaster Expedition blogs.

We’ll also be posting lots of ways you can help call for a moratorium on new offshore drilling and for Congress and the White House to come clean, get rid of campaign contributions from dirty energy, and stop subsidizing big oil and coal.

In the meantime, help us promote our Energy [R]evolution report, which shows how it’s possible to phase out fossil fuels and reach 96% renewables in our energy mix by 2050. The US consumes 25% of the oil produced globally but has only 3% of the world’s oil reserves. We will never drill our way out of being dependent on foreign oil. The only way for the US to achieve energy security and stop oil spills before they happen is to invest in its huge renewable energy potential.

Today the big news is that BP thinks it has finally managed to cap the well that has spewed as much as 184 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Now, of course, we’re all waiting anxiously to see if the cap BP placed over the well will be able to contain the oil, or if it will spring a new leak and begin gushing even more oil into the Gulf.

It’s great that BP might at last have stopped the bleeding. But compare this to another less-noted bit of news: It was announced today that China has officially overtaken the USA as the world’s leading investor in renewable energy.

View more images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Nothing could paint a starker picture of the state of energy in America. Fossil fuels companies and their lobbyists have a stranglehold on our energy policy, and we’ve failed miserably to move off of their dirty product even as reckless companies like BP and Massey Energy have destroyed lives and livelihoods across the nation in their pursuit of profits. We’re reduced to hoping a thoroughly negligent oil company has finally managed to contain a disastrous leak — which nonetheless has already done untold damage that will affect the Gulf region for decades — as our global competitors quietly pass us by in ushering in the coming clean energy revolution.

We’re falling behind. Renewables are the way of the future, no matter how many fossil fuels lobbyists there are trying to convince our elected officials otherwise. China knows this, and is aggressively pursuing renewable energy.

When will we wise up?

Sometimes doing nothing is a good outcome and this is exactly what the IWC did at it’s June meeting in Agadir, Morocco nothing.  There was a real possibility that the decades old moratorium on commercial whaling could have been over turned at the recent IWC meeting, that did not happen. The outcome from the IWC meeting was minor a victory for the whales as no new conservation measures were adopted either. The killing by Japan, Norway and Iceland continues. However the world did not step back into the failed policies of past with the IWC again regulating commercial whaling. We won one battle in Agadir but the larger battle to save our planet’s great whales goes on. Greenpeace will continue the fight to end all commercial whaling. One positive result of our advocacy is that we now have the Obama Administration working along side us, an outcome we can all be proud of.

“First and foremost, the United States continues to support the commercial whaling moratorium. We strongly oppose lethal scientific whaling – we strongly believe it unnecessary for modern whale conservation and management. In particular, the United States is concerned by whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and by the increased international trade and black market trade in whale meat and whale products.”  Delivered as part of the USA opening statement at the June 2010 IWC meeting in Agadir, Morocco. This statement is a direct result of all of the great advocacy work done by Greenpeace and other NGOs prior to the June IWC meeting. We now have a solid policy position from President Obama. WELL DONE EVERYONE!

Another surprise from our recent advocacy arrived this week in the mail, a thank you letter from President Obama. I want to share with you the thank you letter we received from the White House. Over the past couple of years Greenpeace’s whale campaign delivered a variety art work created by school children and others to the White House asking President Obama to “save the whales.” The whale art took many different forms including post cards, photo contest album, oragami whales and a large the pile of crayon drawings from elementary school kids. Along with the thank you letter we also received a photo of the First Family (link), one of President Obama and one of their dog. Thank you everyone who took the time to create and send your whale art to the President. The whale art was obviously noticed by the White House.

In the embattled world of sustainable seafood, it's always nice to see positive change in a major public venue. As heartwarming as it is to hear from someone who has pledged to stop eating Chilean sea bass or unagi, it feels even better when a restaurant — or even better, an entire seafood distributor — drops it altogether in the name of environmental preservation.

In this vein, I’m thrilled to see a spark of light appear in the otherwise relentlessly dismal saga of the bluefin tuna.

Many readers are likely familiar with Food Network’s Iron Chef America, a culinary contest wherein a visiting chef races against time to prepare an assortment of gastronomic delights for a panel of judges. At the same time, one of the resident masters — a star-spangled group known as the Iron Chefs — embarks on the same task in an effort to defend his or her title against the upstart challenger. The dishes are linked by the requirement that they must all involve the day’s secret ingredient, which is revealed only moments before the contest begins. The entire exercise takes place in front of dozens of cameras and a few quirky announcers in a regal arena known as “Kitchen Stadium.”

Iron Chef America is a interesting show, to be sure, but it has historically concentrated on strict gastronomic hedonism — it seems that no ingredient is too expensive (or too endangered) to be included in the Stadium’s massive inventory. I remember one particular episode of its forerunner, the Japanese TV cult smash Iron Chef, where a chef cooked down half a dozen lobsters with a few stalks of asparagus only to subsequently serve the lobster-infused vegetable and throw the crustaceans themselves in the trash.

Anyhow, the reason I bring this up is to highlight what I consider to be significant shift towards ocean conservation in the highest levels of the modern American foodscape. Iron Chef America has catapulted any number of victorious challengers into the spotlight — perhaps it can now do the same for a fish.

On Monday morning, a well-known food blogger and sustainable seafood enthusiast named Richard Auffrey threw his cyber-gauntlet at the feet of culinary celebrity and TV personality Alton Brown. Mr. Brown, the host of Iron Chef America, is known to be a vocal advocate for seafood sustainability. He has, in fact, gone as far as publicly announcing that until sushi kingpin Nobu Matsuhisa removes bluefin tuna from the menus of his eponymous restaurants, he will not set foot in any Nobu anywhere.

So why did Auffrey take aim at someone who seems to be a natural ally in this “Battle Bluefin”? (apologies to the Chairman)

Last week, Kitchen Stadium was visited by Makoto Okuwa, the former sous chef of Iron Chef and sushi icon Masaharu Morimoto. Over the course of the contest, Chef Makoto prepared five dishes, all containing the day’s theme ingredient (which, auspiciously for the sushi chef, happened to be sea urchin.) One of Okuwa’s offerings was his “uni surf and turf”: urchin-kissed wagyu beef paired with a ribbon of otoro, the belly flesh of a bluefin tuna. Brown did not raise any objections or offer any comments on the unsustainability of the dish, and Auffrey reamed him for it.

I’m proud of Auffrey for sticking up for the flagging bluefin, but that’s not why this is so interesting to me. The fascinating thing about this is what happened immediately after Auffrey posted his rant: Brown responded. Like, right away.

Brown fenced with Auffrey a bit over the aggressive and accusatory tone that the blogger had adopted, but he also admitted that the use of bluefin in Kitchen Stadium was lamentable and unnecessary. The two traded barbs and questions for a bit, but in the end, Brown took action and the oceans got what they needed. According to Brown, bluefin tuna is now banned from Iron Chef America.

This is fabulous. Iron Chef America is both one of the pioneering shows behind the recent explosion of food porn in the United States as well the American rendition of a classic Japanese TV program. To have the pseudo-traditional otoro excluded from the Kitchen Stadium arsenal is an extremely powerful statement about the reality of our ailing oceans and the need for immediate action if we are to save them.

There are so many things about this story that I like. I like how Auffrey stood up to Brown and called him out. I like the prompt, gentlemanly, and constructive response Brown offered in spite of his indignation. I like the quick decisive action that Brown took to rectify the situation. I love the fact that bluefin tuna is now pisci non grata on a major Food Network television show. And the icing on the cake? Chef Makoto decisively lost the battle to Iron Chef Michael Symon, who didn’t use any bluefin at all.

Score one for the oceans.

Almost 3 months after BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster began it’s devastation to the Gulf of Mexico, we are finally seeing movement by President Obama to investigate what exactly went wrong after the explosion, what can be done to help the communities affected by this unnecessary disaster and how to make sure it never happens again.

A panel put together by President Obama that is co-chaired by Senator Bob Graham (former two–term governor of Florida) and William K. Reilly (head of the EPA under President Bush), and includes the likes of NRDC’s presidents and the Dean of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), will come together over the next few months to try and figure out what went wrong and how to move forward. They are set to make a recommendation to the President in 6 months, and one can only hope that they will endorse a plan that includes the only thing that makes sense to make sure this never happens again: an end to offshore drilling.

View more images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

I’ve been in the Gulf region for the last two weeks helping to document the devastation that the communities are feeling and bearing witness to the impact of the disaster on wildlife. The impacts are worse than the pictures can convey, the scope of the disaster feels wider than any map can show, and the stories are more saddening than any news program can capture.

Yesterday, the first day the commission met, I struggled through a presentation from Kent Wells, Senior Vice President of BP North America, explaining how sorry they were and how hard they were trying to make it better. I listened as Rear Admiral Peter Neffenger, Deputy Incident Commander for the Coast Guard, described the efforts to contain and clean up BP’s disaster and the struggles they are facing.

I also listened to firsthand accounts from the people that are living the reality of this disaster. Sal Sunseri, the owner of P&J Oyster Company, and Jeff Angers, President of the Center for Coastal Conservation, spoke of the impact of the disaster, the unknowns of dispersants being used during the attempt to clean up the Gulf, and how the Gulf will be changed for generations to come. These communities can not measure the impact this disaster will have on them. They can not tell how their cultures will be impacted or when life will return to what can be considered normal.

I was back this morning as the commission heard from federal government officials on the status of the cleanup efforts, from local elected officials on their communities, and from local leaders about ecological impacts. All this was followed by a 2 hour period for public comment. Stay tuned, I’ll have more updates.

There’s no way to clean up an oil spill. We’ve seen this time and again — in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, for instance, where oil from the Exxon Valdez spill is still having an impact on local ecosystems. Corporations like Exxon or BP that find themselves responsible for an oil spill — or, as was the case for Exxon and now is the case for BP, an oil disaster — are really left with only one option to handle the problem: public relations, damage control and fierce lobbying.

It’s clear BP knows this all too well, and is determined to spare no expense on the cleanup… of its image. We put together this "ScamWow" video to highlight this sad state of affairs:


We decided to spoof the original late night infomercials for the ShamWow miracle clean-up towel, which is touted as a quick fix for any cleaning problem (it's made in Germany and "You know the Germans always make good stuff"), because BP is attempting to use PR damage control as a miracle cure for its sullied image. Except, unfortunately, PR has no miraculous cleaning powers. The company's image may be less soiled as a result of the millions BP is spending on PR, but the Gulf of Mexico will be reeling from the impacts of the company's negligence for decades.

Consider the estimated $50 million BP has spent on an all-out media blitz, complete with a TV ad featuring an earnest Tony “I’d like my life back” Hayward looking into the camera and assuring us “We will make this right.” What he means is, "We will do anything to make you think we will make this right" — anything short of, you know, actually reporting the true size of the spill, allowing journalists unfettered access to spill sites and oiled beaches to provide independent coverage of cleanup operations, stopping the damn leak in a timely manner, or god-forbid taking worker and environmental safety concerns seriously in the first place so that this spill never even happened.

“The Gulf spill is a tragedy that never should have happened,” Tony “The size of the spill is small in relation to the size of the ocean” Hayward tells us in his TV ad. We can agree on that, at least, Tony!

BP has engaged multiple PR and lobby firms to help wage its PR assault, which spans all conceivable media. According to our calculations, BP spent almost $6 million through the end of June on ads in newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today, while also purchasing Google and Yahoo ads that will display whenever people search for “oil spill” — surely an extremely pricey keyword at the moment that is generating a lot of clicks.

Considering the spill cleanup costs (estimated at $16 million a day), why would BP do this? Because public relations and lobbying is one way BP can turn public opinion in their favor and soften the blow from lawsuits, regulators, and Congress.  If the public could somehow be made to feel sympathetic toward BP, or to feel that BP is really going “to make this right,” the ultimate financial pain to BP might be lessened. So from where BP’s sitting — a place where the bottom line is the ultimate concern, not Gulf Coast residents’ livelihoods, not Gulf Coast ecosystems — the decision to give their image the vigorous scrubbing they can’t give the Gulf Coast ecosystems befouled by their oil is a no-brainer.

BP made $66 million a day in profits in the first quarter of 2010. If they want to keep raking it in hand over fist like that, they gotta do some damage control. It’s just that simple.

Oil spills are an inevitability of the supremely dirty oil drilling business, especially as companies are forced to dig deeper and take more outrageous risks to reach what’s left of the world’s oil reserves. Heard about BP’s plans to drill 2 miles deep and as much as eight miles horizontally from a gravel island the company built in the middle of the Beaufort Sea up in the Arctic? No, that’s not just a sick joke.

The Exxon Valdez spill is not our only example of how impossible it is to clean up spilled oil: Ask the villagers down in Ecuador who are still battling with Chevron to try and get their traditional lands cleaned up, or the people over in Nigeria who suffer from companies like Shell spilling the equivalent of a Valdez-sized spill every year. Oil is wreaking havoc on communities across the globe, and the companies responsible always seem to treat these disasters as little more than the cost of doing business. The Ecuadorian Amazon, the Niger Delta, the Gulf of Mexico — these are collateral damage in Big Oil’s relentless pursuit for reckless profits.

The real way forward is of course to stop drilling and invest in clean energy, but oil companies cannot be depended on to drive society toward clean energy. They are OIL companies after all.

The only way to stop oil spills once and for all is to leave it in the ground where it belongs. President Obama and Congress need to ensure we kickstart the clean energy revolution and stop drilling for oil. Check out our blueprint for how America can achieve 96% renewable energy by 2050 and create over a million jobs by 2030: Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable USA Energy Outlook. Help promote our vision for the sustainable future! Then take action to tell Congress No New Drilling, Period.

On July 6th, the Brazilian Forest Code, the law which regulates the use of the Amazon rainforest, has suffered the most serious setback in recent history. For years NGOs like Greenpeace, scientists and civil society have been fighting to protect the legislation from being hijacked by corporate interests. Those efforts were threatened when a major revision of the laws was proposed earlier this year.
With the final vote by the Special Commission set up for this purpose being 13 to 5 in favor of the changes, the bill is now set to be discussed in the Brazilian Chamber of Representatives later this year. However, the fact that this will delay the process until after the Presidential elections in October is hardly a reason to celebrate. In fact, the upcoming Presidential elections could have disastrous consequences for the passage of the bill. Several politicians are expected to trade approval to the proposed legislation for votes and political support from the powerful agricultural sector during the upcoming campaign.

Those political realities put the Forest Code in immediate danger. Under the existing law, landowners are required to set aside 80% of their lands as Legal Reserves in the Amazon. This protection is now at stake. If the proposed bill becomes law, that area would be reduced to a mere 50% which would legalize the clearing of enormous amounts of forest. For more on the history and importance of the Brazilian Forest Code, check out our recent blog post and watch Greenpeace's Amazon Campaign Director Paulo Adario speaking on the issue:

Agribusiness, the energy sector and producers of biofuels have been pushing for more deforestation in the future. But it is not their future business prospects alone that these interest groups are worried about. They also are concerned about their past crimes. One of the most outrageous changes is related to the prosecution of those who have broken the existing Forest Code. The new bill includes a clause granting amnesty to environmental crimes like illegal deforestation committed in areas of permanent preservation before July 22nd, 2008. This means that fines and other penalties imposed before this date will be suspended if the proposed legislation passes.

Although pressure and actions by Greenpeace and others have lead to some last-minute changes, the bill remains more than just flawed. While it does not leave the regulation of deforestation completely in the hands of the states anymore, it still contains several loopholes. State governments, which have always been more receptive to pressure groups, will be able to allow deforestation when they believe public interests to be at stake or when they think that the environmental impact is considerably small.

The overall impact of the proposed changes, however, is anything but small. This is why Greenpeace is urging politicians to repeal the proposed changes and not pass the new Forest Code.

Next Tuesday is the fourth annual Hansen Day – or HD4 – how do you plan
to commemorate it?

What’s “Hansen Day”? Hansen Day – or what should be known as Hansen Day — is July 13. It was on that date in 2006 that NASA scientist and leading climate change expert James Hansen wrote in the New York Review of Books: “…we have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions. Our previous decade of inaction has made the task more difficult, since emissions in the developing world are accelerating.” The entire article is worth reading, or re–reading.

Statistics in the article still surprise me. How could I have forgotten? Warmer isotherms — the bands in which given temperatures dominate — are moving toward the poles at 35 miles per decade, while species that depend on those isotherms are migrating at four miles per decade. If we don’t change our ways – and we haven’t since Dr. Hansen published the article — isotherms will be moving at 70 miles per decade by this century’s end, a recipe for mass extinction.

The same business-as-usual scenario may yield an increase in sea levels of 80 feet (!) by the end of the century, wiping out every coastal city in the world, sending hundreds of millions of people scrambling and setting off global warfare. It seems too impossibly catastrophic to be true, so we ignore it and do nothing.

(I’m typing this at 6:30 a.m. It’s 82 degrees in northwest Vermont, the only time of day when I can be in my office without dissolving into a pool of sweat. It was 99 at 10 p.m. last night. It’s been above 90 for the last five days in this, the land of no air conditioning.)

None of this is inevitable. We have the technology in hand to substantially reduce our use of fossil fuels and their creation of greenhouse gas. We had those technologies four years ago when Jim Hansen wrote his article. We have not mobilized the political will to use them.

We need to tax carbon. Now. What’s happening so graphically in the Gulf of Mexico is exactly what we’re doing to our atmosphere each and every day, except it doesn’t look the same. The consequences, however, will be worse.

In his article, Dr. Hansen writes about Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina discovering, in the 1970s, the damage done to the Earth’s ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbon chemicals (CFCs) and how the global community reacted, via the Montreal Protocol, to phase out CFCs and reduce the damage and eventually, the threat posed by these chemicals. He calls for a similar effort on fossil fuels. 

Second, the fossil fuel industry learned from the ozone crisis. It did not learn how to be a good global citizen and save humankind from the worst effects of our excesses. It learned how to undermine scientists and environmental organizations. It learned how to protect its short-term profits and executive compensation, even at the cost of our civilization. We see that playing out in Congress today as the “representatives” of those most damaged by the latest oil atrocity scream loudest for renewed deep water oil drilling.

This year marks the fourth Hansen Day — there are only six left. Hansen Day should be recognized as a day to take stock of where we have come since July 2006 (the wrong way, really) and think about how far we’ll have to go to avoid the hazards Dr. Hansen outlined in his article.

Maybe the global recession has bought us some time, maybe not. Certainly not enough for us to make up for four years of doing the wrong thing. Since Dr. Hansen’s article was published, China has become a world leader in renewable energy technology, but it has also become the world’s number one greenhouse gas emitter. Not good news at the end of the day — or century.

How many more Hansen Days with pass with no action taken? How many can we afford? As he wrote, we have ten years, not to decide, but to fundamentally alter our trajectory.Hansen Day is not for celebrating, but it should be noted.

As a result of the oil spill in the Gulf, people are beginning to question our dependence on oil. Though the massive leak was an catastrophic environmental tradgedy, it may have been the push we needed towards a renewable energy future. In the meantime, we personally, can take baby steps away from oil.

This entry comes by popular request. A lot of people have been asking what they can do to use less oil, and reduce demand for the sticky stuff ruining beaches everywhere. Here's my top ten, feel free to add to it in comments:

1. Carpool, cycle or use public transport to go to work.

2. Choose, when possible, products packaged without plastic and recycle or re-use containers.

3. Buy organic fruits and vegetables (fertilisers and pesticides are based on oil more often than not).

4. Buy beauty products (shampoo, soap, make-up) based on natural ingredients, not oil.

5. Choose when possible locally produced products (less transport involved).

6. Buy clothes made out of organic cotton or hemp - not from oil derivatives.

7. Use non-disposable items in picnics and summer festivals.

8. Quit bottled water.

9. Fly less.

10. Demand that your government encourage renewable energy instead of subsidizing oil.

Take action! Tell Congress that a ban on all new oil drilling is the only way to avoid another spill disaster

If you're a fan of forests, you've probably heard a lot recently about the Greenpeace Paradise Forest campaign.  In particular, you may have heard about the giant conglomerate Sinar Mas which dominates the palm oil industry in Indonesia.  Greenpeace has documented Sinar Mas repeatedly breaking industry guidelines, Indonesian law and its own public statements, razing rainforests to the ground in its race to produce palm oil.  The growing controversy around their role in destroying rainforests crucial to endangered wildlife like orangutans and Sumatran tigers has led companies like Nestle, Kraft and Unilever to start cutting Sinar Mas palm oil out of their supply chains.

Sinar Mas is a huge conglomerate, and palm oil is only one of its businesses...and only one of the ways it destroys rainforests.  Asia Pulp & Paper – it’s giant paper branch – is one of the largest paper companies in the world, and one of the worst threats to rainforests and carbon-rich peatlands in Indonesia.

A new Greenpeace report released today exposes the destructive practices of APP and shines a light on the companies that are still doing business Sinar Mas.  The report also counters recent APP greenwash, including its claim that its suppliers “only develop least valuable degraded forests and denuded [barren] wasteland.”  Pulping the Planet shows that the company is still sourcing from critical orangutan and Sumatran tiger habitat such as the Bukit Tigapulu Forest Landscape and Kerumutan Peat Forest.  The report details how that rainforest and peatland destruction is also causing huge amounts of climate pollution. 

You can read the report here (you’ll need Adobe Reader and some patience to download the report since it’s a pretty big file).

 

The report has already earned a lot of international attention and been reported on in with media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN and Time Magazine.

 

The report also draws attention to companies like Pizza Hut, Burger King and Dunkin’ Donuts that Sinar Mas listed as key global customers in 2009.  With leading food companies like Nestle, Kraft and Unilever taking action to sever business ties with rainforest-destroying companies, you have to wonder what fast-food companies are waiting for...are they waiting for activist orangutans to show up at their door?  That could be arranged!

 

Give fast food companies a wake up call.  Click here to tell them to stop serving up rainforest destruction!

 

For the forests,

 -Rolf

David Helvarg is an author and president of the Blue Frontier Campaign, a marine conservation group. He recently went out with our team in the Gulf on board our boat the Billy Greene.

By the end of the summer, it could be raining oil along the Gulf of Mexico. 

Hurricane Alex is the first of a series of 14 named storms predicted for the 2010 hurricane season. The Gulf is warmer than it's been since before 2005 when unusually warm water super-charged Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and also led to massive coral bleaching and die-offs across the Caribbean. Even as it makes landfall 600 miles from the main oil slicks, the waves and winds generated by Alex have forced skimming operations to be cancelled and threatened to push oil farther onto the shores and into the marshes that include 40 percent of America's coastal wetlands. 

During this potentially devastating storm season of 2010, the Gulf's massive fields of oil could be swept ashore, mixed in the water column, or even lifted into the storm clouds to rain out in oily downpours, like some Biblical plague, on the coastal communities of the oil-producing Gulf. 

In 2005, just after Hurricane Katrina, I remember stopping in Biloxi, Miss., by an 8,000-ton, 600-foot-long casino barge that the 25-to-30-foot storm surge had driven half a mile across Beach Drive. Somewhere underneath its barnacle-encrusted black hull was a historic mansion. Another casino barge had gouged a hole halfway up the stately six-story yellow brick yacht club before coming to rest next to it. The beach was covered for miles in plastic buckets, insulation, mattresses, furniture, chunks of drywall, and Styrofoam pellets that the seabirds were eyeing as potential snack food. I felt like an eco-geek being more concerned about the gulls and wetlands than the lost revenue from the casinos that everyone else seemed to be obsessing about. 

On June 28, 2010, tar balls started coming ashore on Biloxi's cleaned-up white sand beaches just as they had been on the squeaky sugar-white sands of the Florida Panhandle for days and weeks. Far less dramatic than what I'd seen after Katrina, these are the first signs of what promises to be a far more persistent and continuous fouling of beaches for months and possibly years to come. With 95 percent of the oil still offshore, these first small tar balls represent a dire threat to the economic drivers of the Gulf states that are its coastlines, particularly for the state of Florida, where they could be scraping oil off the sand till there's no sand left. 

Even after the most visible oil is cleaned up by a living wave of work crews and skimmers, much of it remains behind, infiltrating into the backwater wetlands or the sand itself. 

In Grand Isle, La., Greenpeace marine biologist (and Ocean Campaign Director) John Hocevar takes me out on Greenpeace's 27-foot diesel jet-powered rigid hull inflatable, the Billy Greene, named for a filmmaker who loved the natural world but was cut down by an urban predator.

We zip across to Grand Terre Island, which had been hit by oil two days earlier. The water on the crossing is full of pods of dolphin workboats and oily rainbow sheens. Just as New Orleans after Katrina looked like a Woodstock for first responders, the waters around Grand Isle now look like a boat show for oil-spill response vessels.

The beach on Grand Terre is boomed off and relatively cleaned off, though there's still some heavy oil left between a rock jetty and the marsh behind it. I stumble and climb on the side of the boulder-pile break wall to where the oil is thick and brown on the rocks and along the marsh grass. The tidal swell between the rocks slowly lifts and lowers the thick sludgy oil, reminding me of a brown diseased lung rising and falling in an open chest. It seems like a living thing and keeps me mesmerized for some minutes till I get a call from a CNN producer asking if I think the Coast Guard has the resources to meet this latest disaster. The media presence is heavy as the humidity on these bayous and hopefully won't go away once the exploding oil bore is sealed.

On our way off the beach, there are two dolphins swimming by some yellow blackened oily boom. "Some oil became pebble-like interacting with the sand," Hocevar tells me. More oil appears as red spots on the surface of the sand, though he says it has also sunk below the surface. I take a stick to dig with and see more copper-like spots appear along the edges of the hole I've created. After confirming what he's said, I throw the sandy stick away and brush my hands against each other, only the sand won't come off. I try again. When I rub my hands on my jeans, they leave an oily brown stain on the denim and thin brown streaks of oil on my palms. Now multiply that one million times or more and add wind fetch and storm surges.

I seriously doubt that we can "make it better than it was before," as President Obama promised he would do for the Gulf region in his recent White House speech on the disaster. BP also makes promises in radio ads that play every day around here: "We may not always be perfect but we will make it right." I love the calculated tone of the ad. Hell, we all know nobody is perfect. I may have killed my grandma and shot my dog, but I'll make it right. 

Meanwhile, we continue to hope for more luck than we're likely to get during this hurricane season.

This post also appeared on Grist.org.

As the temperature rises here in Washington, DC and all over the country, people flock to beaches, pools, and anyplace we can find to splash around and cool off.

My son loves the water. He’s happy to run right in without a care in the world. But, as he plunges his face into the cool water and plays with little “treasures” he finds, I start worrying about what he’s being exposed to.

Our oceans, though vast and deep, are fast-becoming polluted from land-based sources. And, sadly, it’s turning our once-pristine ocean into a dumping ground. There’s an increasing number of beach closures due to pollution, not to mention the oil in the Gulf of Mexico that is still spewing and contaminating the Gulf and well-beyond.

Awareness and “action” is so important! We can’t sit around and let our oceans become contaminated cesspools. Instead, we have to work together to spread the word and speak up about ocean conservation.

One of my very-favorite bands has taken on the cause of protecting the oceans. Pearl Jam has launched a new website and dediced their “Amongst the Waves” video to ocean awareness and advocacy. The goal of this new venture is to provide all of us with a handy resource and an avenue to get involved. I crawled around this site and was happy to find easy ways for people to really help make a difference and take action to save the oceans.

Pardon me for switching songs, but I’d like to close with a line from my favorite Pearl Jam song, Rearview Mirror…

“So it feels so much clearer, once you look in my rearview mirror.”

It’s my hope that the disaster of the Gulf Oil spill and constant “spew” is that it serves as a rearview mirror for all of us. We look in the rearview mirror and say, “Never Again!” It’s a constant reminder that we’ve gone awry and will work together to set a new, “greener” path for our future. Our oceans deserve better, future generations deserve better and we can make it right by deciding to never let it happen again.

--Michelle

"The basis of a democratic state is liberty." — Aristotle

On Sunday we celebrate the Fourth of July and America's independence from tyranny and injustice. But we go into this weekend with a tangible reminder of our continued dependence on fossil fuels.

Hurricane Season is here. Oil continues its advance unabated into the Gulf. We don’t know how much oil is flowing. BP is incapable of solving the problem. Congress is soon to recess. Neither the Federal nor State governments have the ability to remediate the damage.

Yet how many of us will jump in the car this weekend? Isn’t this complicity in Big Oil’s stranglehold on our lives? Why are we buying the "dirty lie" that oil is the crux of our transportation energy mix?

America can generate 96% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050, and create over one million renewable energy sector jobs by 2030. Read more and download the Energy [R]evolution report (PDF)

BP has spent millions on advertising in USA Today, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Don’t worry, we’ll clean it up, they say. Stay calm everyone. They’re on top of it. Nothing to see here.

In fact, BP has obscured the truth at every turn. Now, they are in the process of christening their horribly misnamed “Liberty” drilling operation (Happy Fourth of July, right?) in Alaska.  They will drill two miles beneath a small, man-made island, and then drill sideways for six to eight miles so that they can reach an offshore reservoir.

But what about the moratorium announced by President Obama? Well, since they’ve built a 31-acre artificial gravel island, they're able to register it as an onshore rig, effectively green-lighting their operation.

At what point does outrage spark our elected officials to put aside partisan bickering and get the job done? This is about ecocide in the Gulf of Mexico. This is about Big Oil gaming the system so that they can profit off of our public lands.

Punching a hole in the ground and extracting super-heated, highly pressurized oil and natural gas is dangerous and messy. There is one way to prevent this from happening again. We must have a permanent ban on all drilling.  There must be unlimited liability for polluters. We must end all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies and transition public investments to clean, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

Drilling moratoriums are not permanent and can be easily circumvented. Liability escrow accounts are not policy. As long as it is exceedingly lucrative to drill for oil these companies will continue their operations. Indeed, one month before the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster began, a BP presentation from March 2010 identified expanding deepwater drilling as the company’s “key sources of growth” beyond 2015.

Too much time has passed since the oil has started flowing into the Gulf. How much suffering need be inflicted upon the people of the Gulf for the rest of America to act?

I say enough is enough. We need to channel the spirit of the Fourth and declare independence from Big Oil. An Energy [R]evolution is necessary.

This Fourth of July, declare your independence from Big Oil’s big deceptions.

Eleven weeks ago, BP's Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded into the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers. Since the explosion thousands upon thousands of barrels of oil have spewed into this precious ecosystem, hundreds of wildlife have been affected, the fishing industry has been decimated, and an entire culture is being threatened.

Greenpeace scientists and volunteers have been in the Gulf since week one collecting data and exposing the largest environmental disaster of our time. Using our boats, planes and expertise we've helped reporters gain access to hard to reach areas and documented the disaster ourselves every step of the way. Here are some of our most powerful photos, along with those of others, to share with you what we've seen in the past 11 weeks. On Independence Day this weekend, let us remember that we have yet to achieve energy independence from dirty and harmful fossil fuels.

 See the full post and slideshow on the Huffington Post

 

Millions of Americans, like myself, are preparing to celebrate Independence Day with backyard BBQs and picnics. As people flock to supermarkets and shopping centers to stock up, those ending up at Costco Wholesale might be surprised at what they find.

In the Costco warehouse you'll find freezers and coolers full of unsustainable fish. Greenpeace surveys found that Costco continues to sell fifteen of the twenty-two red list seafood items.

Costco is the largest wholesale club operator in North America. While Costco continues to grow bigger and bigger, so does its footprint on the environment. Did you know that Costco is destroying our oceans through its harmful seafood purchasing practices?

 

It's time to shine a spotlight on Costco and expose the truth behind their destructive seafood policies. Costco can be a leader in ocean conservation, not a contributor to ocean destruction.

Costco can and must do better!

Greenpeace is urging Costco to implement a sustainable seafood policy, to offer transparency in its seafood labeling, and to stop selling red list seafood starting immediately with orange roughy and Chilean sea bass.

Sign our pledge telling Costco that our oceans deserve better.

 

As public support for solutions to climate change grows, the theme of last week's G8 and G20 meetings seems to have been a decided lack of urgency to implement solutions to global warming.

The G8 focused on security threats — nuclear proliferation, terrorism — but failed to make any progress on global warming, easily the biggest threat to global peace we're facing. Four paragraphs in the final communiqué were devoted specifically to climate change — including assurances that leaders are “committed to building low carbon and climate resilient economies” and that “climate change remains top of mind” — but no new initiatives or specific actions were announced that would indicate a sense of urgency among the G8 leadership.

The G20 had similarly unimpressive results to show for itself. Some G20 leaders took the first steps towards phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but collectively the G20 failed to address the urgent need for visionary leadership to stop catastrophic climate change and transition the global economy toward clean, green renewable energy.

Some nations deserve more credit than others. Of all the G20 nations, the US offered up the most robust plan for ending subsidies for big oil and coal, though the plan represents only a fraction of the total subsidies and still requires Congressional approval. At the other end of the spectrum, nations like Australia and Canada failed to take their commitments seriously. In appendices to the communiqué, language suggests that commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies are “voluntary and member-specific,” something Canada and Australia have been aggressively pushing for.

One of the best reactions I've read so far, however, is from a colleague over at Greenpeace International, Brian Fitzgerald:

I don't know about you, but the leaders I want to follow aren't the ones who say it's too hard to break the world's addiction to dirty energy. The politicians I want to elect aren't bought off by oil lobbyists. The beaches I want to walk on are not covered in tar balls. The future I want to inhabit isn't black with coal dust and oily scum.

They don't know it yet, but the politicians who sat in last week's G20 meeting and decided to backslide on their commitments to tackle climate change are no longer the most important voices on the planet. It's the people who were outside that meeting calling for an energy revolution. It's the people who have a better idea about what our world can look like, run by energy sources that don't spill, burn, explode, poison, or destroy. Those are the voices we need to listen to, those are the investment paths we need to follow. Real leaders look ahead to the next generation, not the next election. This is what they look like:

Nicole Sands is the Web Producer for Greenpeace USA, based in Gainesville Florida... 

I joined hands today with a whole string of people who gathered to join hands from end to end of Cedar Key's beach on the Gulf of Mexico in Florida, about 50 miles from where I live in Gainesville, Fl. We gathered to draw a line in the sand. It's time to protect our coasts from the dangers of offshore drilling. It's time for an energy revolution — to move away from the reckless energy policy that got us in to this mess.

 

 

I love that this was a grassroots event, sprung from the mind of one person who wanted to make a difference. Floridian Dave Rauschkolb started what today became an international event sponsored by dozens of organizations, including Greenpeace.

He stated:

 

“America could be, should be the world leader in expanding cleaner energy sources yet our political process is paralyzed by oil money.   It is time for our leaders to take bold, courageous steps and open the door to clean energy and renewables and free our country from its addiction to oil.

 

I couldn't agree more.

The Gulf of Mexico is beautiful. It's warm, shallow for miles and the water is crystal clear. It's teeming with life and it's a treasure for Florida and the world. We've gotten ourselves into a situation where as a "solution" we're literally setting the water on fire. We're killing our wildlife, we're poisoning our beaches. We're so clearly and devastatingly on the wrong path. I hope today demonstrated for everyone, that a large number of us are committed to turning it around.

Toronto - world leaders are gathering today to discuss several topics, including how to implement their commitment at their last meeting to phase out fossil fuel subsidies worldwide.

9:34, Monday, June 28

My prediction that some countries would show up with nothing (because I may have seen the leaked document with the commitments from different countries) hits the E&E Daily:

NATIONS: Six countries claim no fossil fuel subsidies -- leaked G-20 report (06/28/2010)

Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter

President Obama and other world leaders yesterday renewed their commitment to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but sidestepped specifics about how individual countries would do so and when.
Issuing a final declaration as they wrapped up a Group of 20 economic summit in Toronto, leaders again asked finance and energy ministers to come up with strategies for eliminating assistance for oil and gas production and consumption.

5:21, Sunday, June 27

The G20 Ends

Some G20 leaders have taken first steps towards phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, but collectively, their actions still don't address the urgent need to stop catastrophic climate change.

Read the full blog here on the Huffington Post.

We did it! Thanks to YOU, the Obama Administration kept its promise to save whales at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) talks. As a result, the IWC was unable to lift the ban on commercial whaling!

As I sat in a stuffy meeting room in Agadir, Morocco with delegates and representatives from other nations, I knew I wasn’t alone in working to help save the whales. I had more than 1.5 million passionate people, like YOU, with me there in spirit supporting the whales and standing up to tell the President that they deserve to be saved, not slaughtered.

 

While the gathering nations failed to implement new plans for whale conservation, I’m pleased that our President and his team stood their ground in the end, thanks to your efforts.

This year, the best we could do was preventing the IWC from rolling back protections for whales. Next year, we need to apply even more pressure so the IWC will close dangerous loopholes that have allowed Japan, Iceland, and Norway to continue killing whales.

Thank you for all your support. The whales are breathing a big sigh of relief!

For the whales,
Phil Kline

 

 

In the wake of the unconscionable decision earlier this week by a federal judge in Louisiana to lift the deepwater drilling moratorium, it's good to see Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is talking about taking action. But what we really need is Congressional action to ban offshore drilling.

View more images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Obama Administration should renew its efforts to enforce a ban on new drilling activities. This certainly means that Secretary Salazar should reissue the moratorium with further clarification and justification, and President Obama should appeal the court ruling to the 5th circuit as his administration has promised.

At the same time, Congress needs to enact a drilling ban into law — the moratorium should not have been allowed to lapse in the first place and Congress should take immediate action to ensure that no new drilling occurs.

In order to stop fossil fuels tragedies like the BP Deepwater Disaster once and for all, we need to leave behind the dirty energy of the past and move aggressively toward the clean energy of the future. No more fossil fuels and nuclear energy. We must replace them with clean renewable energy and efficiency technology.

Sign our petition calling on Congress to:

• Enact an immediate ban on all new drilling and phase-out all remaining drilling;
• Remove liability limits for energy-related activities in accordance with the principal that the polluter must pay;
• Improve regulation and oversight of energy-related activities to ensure maximum protection of the public health and the environment;
• And end all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy and invest in clean renewable energy, efficiency technology, and infrastructure development.

You would be hard pressed to find a director of an environmental group who is more critical than yours truly regarding the gap between President Obama’s visionary campaign messages and his actual leadership on environmental issues.

But I must say that I was impressed when I heard the U.S. government’s position against commercial whaling and any trade of whale products at the International Whaling Commission. While the nations that gathered failed to come to an agreement that could help save whales – largely because countries like Japan refuse to stop slaughtering whales – the President and his team stood their ground in the end.

While campaigning for president, Obama promised Greenpeace that under his leadership, the United States would work to strengthen the international moratorium on commercial whaling. He declared that “allowing Japan to continue commercial whaling is unacceptable.”

 

That promise came under question this year when we received confirmation that the President was supporting a proposal that would have lifted the 24-year ban on commercial whaling. In response, 1.5 million people signed petitions urging the White House to stand up for whales and President Obama, to his credit, listened.  The US statement at the IWC meeting reaffirmed the government's support for whale conservation:
 
"First and foremost, the United States continues to support the commercial whaling moratorium. We strongly oppose lethal scientific whaling – we strongly believe it unnecessary for modern whale conservation and management. In particular, the United States is concerned by whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and by the increased international trade and black market trade in whale meat and whale products."

This year, the best we could do was keep the IWC from rolling back protections for whales. Next year, the IWC needs to get serious and close the loopholes that have allowed Japan, Iceland, and Norway to flaunt the moratorium and keep slaughtering whales. As I write this, four Japanese whaling ships are currently navigating the Northwestern Pacific, planning to kill 260 whales by the end of August.

For over thirty years, Greenpeace has been the most outspoken opponent of commercial whaling, taking action to stop the harpooners in their home countries, at sea and in the political arena of IWC meetings and our commitment to bringing about its end in all of our oceans remains. Hopefully by this time next year, we'll be in a position to get the IWC to actually do something positive, instead of having to work like mad just to keep them from moving backwards. Today, the United States stayed true to Obama’s promise to Americans. Today, I feel that hope about the President and our chances to stop whaling that so many felt when President Obama first called on America to share his hope for a better future for our children and grandchildren.

A federal judge in Louisiana stood with the oil industry today and issued an injunction lifting the Obama Administration’s 6-month moratorium on new offshore exploration and existing drilling operations in deep water. Despite the fact that as much as 60,000 barrels of oil continue to pour into the Gulf of Mexico every day, the judge called the moratorium “arbitrary and capricious.”

View more images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

It would appear there was nothing terribly arbitrary about District Court Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling, however. According to Mother Jones, the most recent financial disclosure forms filed by Judge Feldman show that he held several thousand dollars’ worth of Transocean stock as recently as 2008. Transocean, of course, owned the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon rig, which blew up on April 20th, 2010, killing 11 workers and leading to the massive environmental catastrophe in the Gulf. Feldman also owned stock in several other oil companies.

The Obama Admin’s moratorium suspended drilling at 33 existing deepwater wells and barred any new deepwater drilling permits from being granted. Given the rhetoric happily bandied about by Big Oil types claiming that their technology is far too advanced to permit a catastrophe on the order of, oh, say, the BP Deepwater Disaster from ever occurring, the moratorium was at best a middle-of-the-road solution. It’s quite clear that as oil grows scarcer, the solution is not to drill in ever-more remote and difficult-to-reach places but to aggressively transition off of the dirty stuff and on to clean, green renewable energy.

Download the report (PDF)

We recently released a report, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable USA Energy Outlook, that shows exactly how we could do that while leaving dirty, dangerous fossil fuels behind.

Judge Feldman’s ruling was issued in response to a suit filed by several oil companies claiming that they were being unfairly impacted due to the BP Deepwater Disaster. The oil industry’s gross negligence led to the current disaster and many more like it in the past, however, and now they’re trying to pretend that the US federal government has somehow created the current crisis with its moratorium. But it was the oil industry that produced generic cut and paste emergency response plans, relied on a dead technical expert to answer calls, and assured the government that walruses that have not existed in the Gulf for millions of years would not be affected by their operations. This is not a circus and these people can not be allowed to act like clowns pointing their finger at the government and pretending they are not the ones who engineered this disaster.

We have to stand up together against the inordinate influence of Big Oil. The oil industry and other dirty fossil fuels industries can’t be allowed to hijack our energy policy any longer. Help call for an energy revolution by joining a Hands Across the Sand event near you this Saturday.

Twenty years ago, thanks to overwhelming public support, commercial whaling was banned worldwide. But, this wonderful victory that has fostered healthier whale populations and vibrant ecosystems is in serious jeopardy. Right now, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is meeting in Agadir, Morocco. The fate of whales, worldwide, is in the hands of a few powerful individuals. What will they decide?

For decades, countries like Japan, Norway and Iceland have boldly ignored the ban on commercial whaling, exploiting loopholes and killing about two thousand whales per year.

And, now these pro-whaling countries are on the verge of mounting a major victory. A deal, proposed by the United States and others, would actually legalize commercial whaling for the first time in twenty years! If you’re jaw has dropped to your keyboard, you’re not alone. It’s astonishing, upsetting and totally unacceptable!

Let’s go over the rationalization for this whaling deal. The United States must have a good reason for reopening commercial whaling and encouraging other nations to vote for this deal. The proposed deal would grant commercial quotas to Japan, Iceland and Norway. These quotas would allow these three countries to legally hunt whales for a 10-year period in reduced numbers. The whaling countries in return would agree to tighter oversight of their operations, including participation in a whale DNA registry.

The justification is that the “quotas” for legally whaling is lower than the actual numbers these countries are already killing illegally. In essence, the Obama Administration says whales will be saved.

But, haven’t these three nations already proven that they cannot be trusted to follow the rules? Does anyone really believe these countries are going to adhere to the quotas and no longer catch “extra” whales illegally or under the radar?  And what happens in ten years, when the deal expires and countries like Korea and China want to start killing whales too?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

More than 200 scientists and experts have called on the IWC to maintain its ban on commercial whaling to ensure the future of species depleted by industrial hunting.

They have attested that, "There is no evidence that any of the few populations and species known to be increasing have reached, or are anywhere near, the levels that might justify non-zero catch limits."

The IWC should focus on closing loopholes and actually clamping down on illegal commercial whaling instead of pandering to the “law breakers” and allowing them to derail decades of conservation efforts.

President Obama is skating on very thin ice with environmentalists these days. The Gulf is still spewing oil with no end in sight. Does he really want history books to reflect that under his presidency commercial whaling was legalized and offshore drilling continued even as the biggest oil spill in United States history dragged on for months and months?

Speak up! Send a message to President Obama urging him to protect whales and not the whalers. We have an action alert that will deliver your message directly.

If you feel like calling the White House, you can leave a message for the President at the following phone number: 202-456-1414

 

Today, Greenpeace announced that our citizens’ inspection of the Kuehne Chemical plant near New York City in South Kearny, NJ showed that the two million pounds of Chlorine gas on site puts up to 12 million people in the New York area at risk. This “worst case scenario,” defined by their Risk Management Plan submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency, would occur from the release of just one full rail car of chlorine gas. There could be enough chlorine gas on site at the Kuehne facility to fill 11 rail cars and the Department of Homeland Security has said that a terrorist attack would likely be worse than a worst-case scenario.

The Threat

Imagine a low-lying cloud of lethal chlorine gas spreading through New York City or your home town, stretching 15 miles past your childhood playground, your place of worship, or your friends’ homes. Imagine that you witness the same horror seen by American troops when Hitler used chlorine gas as a weapon: people gasping for air and grasping their throats as fumes melted their lungs and slowly suffocate them. Imagine that your Senator could have done something to prevent this.

Last November the House of Representatives passed a bill that November that would require high-risk chemical facilities to convert to safer chemicals if feasible. Soon afterward Senator Lautenberg pledged to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. We expect that legislation to come out soon and we need the full Senate to take action this summer. If the U.S. Senate fails to act this year, you could be one in three Americans who will remain at risk.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 shocked us all and set into motion the tightening of our security systems. While we’ve added air puffing machines to our airports, metal detectors, x-ray machines, and requirements to take off our shoes, our elected officials have all but ignored the fact that the nation’s dangerous chemical facilities remain unsecured. There are so many of these facilities, that the Department of Homeland Security can only inspect less than 5%  of these plants they themselves have identified as high-risk.

This Risk is Unnecessary

This risk need not exist. This facility, as well as other high-risk facilities around the country, could convert to a safer process. One example is Clorox, the most recognizable name in chlorine products, which has pledged to convert all of its plants over the next few years. Dow Chemical is even converting a facility using “just in time” technology that eliminates large storage of chlorine on site. But even with the 500 or more plants that have converted over the last decade, over 110 million Americans still live within the vulnerability zone of a catastrophic chemical disaster; one-third of our population.

Almost nine years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, our most vulnerable targets remain at risk. Simple, inexpensive, and common sense changes, like substituting or reducing the amount of lethal gases stored on-site, would protect millions of people from harm. As Senator Lieberman said during a hearing earlier this year, safer technologies are “the only fool proof way to defeat a terrorist determined to strike a chemical facility.”  In that same hearing Senator Voinovich of Ohio asked, “What’s the need… is there something that’s going to happen that’s catastrophic?” Well, Senator, you sound like your peers who asked me the same questions when lifting the off-shore oil ban.

We need our Senators to support Senator Lautenberg’s bill and stand up to industry lobbyists, take action by sending a message to you Senator.

Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace US, appeared recently on The Breakdown, a weekly podcast on TheNation.com. Kert was the architect of ExxonSecrets.org  and is currently running our PolluterWatch.org campaign.

The Breakdown is a newly launched weekly podcast series by Christopher Haynes of TheNation.com. Haynes describes the podcast: “Basically, it's a new model of how readers and citizens can get their tough questions answered by experts and journalists”.

Last week, we saw a frenzy of activity around the oil spill — BP CEO Tony Hayward was grilled by Congress and President Obama addressed the nation for the first time ever from the Oval Office. Still, the situation remains the same in the Gulf — the world continues to watch the oil gush into the Gulf killing and harming precious marine animals and the ecosystems they rely on.

The Breakdown is betting that one question might have crossed a lot of people’s minds: “Is BP unique in its ability to create catastrophe or is the entire practice of offshore oil drilling inherently and equally dangerous regardless of which company is running the rig?”

Kert helps The Breakdown answer that question here, or listen below:

It looks like you don't have Adobe Flash Player installed. Get it now.

HSBC, one of the world’s largest financial institutions, has attempted to position itself as an environmentally responsible bank.  They have a policy not to invest in companies that destroy rainforests.  They offer customers a mutual fund that invests in companies offering climate solutions.  But, HSBC has a big problem.  Their Global Climate Change Fund invests in Sinar Mas, one of the worst rainforests destroying, climate polluting company on the planet!


Believe it or not, Sinar Mas was included in the climate fund with flawed rationale that their palm oil could be turned into a climate-friendly biodiesel.  But, as Greenpeace has repeatedly pointed out, Sinar Mas destroys Paradise rainforests and carbon-rich peatlands to make room for its palm oil plantations, often breaking industry standards and Indonesia law in the process.

In the United Kingdom, Greenpeace exposed this dramatic contradiction to the London-based bank and in the press, but HSBC leadership in London passed the buck.  They said their forest policy did not apply to funds they managed, only their direct investments.  And they said there wasn’t sufficient data to indicate whether Sinar Mas palm oil biodiesel was bad for the climate.  Huh?

In the US, we decided to help motivate the bank with creative activism.  In San Francisco on Tuesday, orangutans showed up on the busy sidewalks in the heart of the financial district.  They, along with their human friends, distributed hundreds of flyers to passersby, and inspired people to make calls to HSBC headquarters.  The orangutans and their friends ended their visit to HSBC with a rousing song entitled “Oh, HSBC” (sung to the tune of “Oh Christmas Tree”).

Oh, HSBC, oh HSBC
    You’re banking with hypocrisy
Green “Climate Fund” now that’s a gas
You’re investing in dirty Sinar Mas
Oh, HSBC, oh HSBC
    You’re banking with hypocrisy

Oh, HSBC, oh HSBC
    You’re banking with hypocrisy
Orangutans running out of luck
They need your help, but you pass the buck
Oh, HSBC, oh HSBC
    You’re banking with hypocrisy

Oh, HSBC, oh HSBC
    You’re banking with hypocrisy
You have a forest policy
But you weasel out with technicalities
Oh, HSBC, oh HSBC
    You’re banking with hypocrisy

Catchy isn’t it?

On Thursday, orangutans visited an HSBC bank in Silicone Valley on the sunny streets of Palo Alto.  Within moments of a banner unfurling and an orangutan “die-in” (orangutans sprawled out, lying on the sidewalk) bank management called the police.  But, since our orangutans were well-behaved and well versed in their rights to free speech and assembly, they were allowed to stay on site, spreading the word and attracting supportive honks from passing motorists…much to the dismay of HSBC management.

Where will the activist apes show up next?  HSBC will have to wait and see!  In the meantime, send your message to HSBC by clicking here.

-Rolf

 

 

A lot of folks who read this blog have been asking how they can get involved in the clean up efforts down in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, I’ve never seen such an outpouring of sympathy and desire to help before, and it’s really been quite moving. So in the interest of ensuring everyone is getting plugged in to the efforts to clean up the Gulf and stop the next oil spill before it happens, just wanted to post a follow up to my previous “Volunteer info for Gulf oil spill” blog.

As I wrote in that volunteer info post, if you want to get involved directly in the clean up and animal rescue efforts, the best thing to do is get in touch directly with the groups who are coordinating that work. You have to be trained and accompanied by a wildlife expert to assist in animal rescue, for instance, and those groups have experts standing by ready to train volunteers and lead them out into the field on rescue efforts.

Since the first days after the oil started gushing out of BP’s damaged well, Greenpeace has had a team — including independent oil spill experts as well as staffers — on the ground, where they’re reporting the truth about what’s happening in the Gulf — the truth that BP has been trying to hide. We’ve taken many members of the media out on our boats to see for themselves the devastation of the Gulf and its coastal ecosystems. Our phototographers have helped document the real extent of the damage. In order to keep up the sense of urgency, and to keep the pressure on BP, spreading the messages in our oil spill updates or the pictures of the oil spill that show the extent of the damage is a big help.

If you can’t make it down to the Gulf Coast region but want to do something, there is plenty more you can do. The most important thing for those of us not involved in the clean up and rescue efforts is to call on our elected representatives to stop the next spill before it happens. A quick and easy way to help is by taking action right now to tell your members of Congress to ban any and all new offshore drilling.

Of course, simply signing online petitions will not be enough to kickstart an Energy [R]evolution and get us off of dirty fossil fuels like oil once and for all. That’s why we’re partnering with Hands Across the Sand, MoveOn, 350, the Audobon Society, the Sierra Club, and many other organizations on June 26th to hold hundreds of events nationwide where people will join hands to literally draw a line in the sand and say it’s time to end offshore oil drilling and start the clean energy revolution.

Our national organizer, Anna, has the scoop on the Hands Across the Sands events over on our Grassroots Blog: “It’s time to draw a line in the sand.”

Here's a note from Renee, who works in San Francisco as a toxics campaigner trying to encourage electronics companies to go green:

Greenpeace activists have shown up at Dell headquarters in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Bangalore, and Austin. Plus, more than 40,000 activists around the world have sent emails asking Dell to design out toxics. Dell's hearing your message.

In 2006, Dell committed to eliminating PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from all their products by 2009. But halfway through 2010, Dell has yet to meet this original deadline and it doesn’t look like this giant electronics company will even meet its new deadline of 2011. It’s clear that Michael Dell is all talk and no action.

Here are answers to some common questions we've heard about why we are pressing Dell and why our Greener Electronics campaign is important.

Why Dell?

Question: Why does Greenpeace care what Dell does - they're not the biggest PC manufacturer, and they're not the worst of them all (Nintendo is)?

Answer: Dell is the 3rd largest computer manufacturer in the world with 12% of the entire market. That adds up to a significant amount of influence over the electronics industry. With HP and Apple already making most (HP) if not all (Apple) of their products free from PVC and BFRs, adding Dell to this list of industry leaders would help pressure the rest of supply chain, and the industry, to eliminate these toxic chemicals once and for all.

What does Dell say?

Question: Why haven't they followed through?

Answer: Thousands of our supporters have emailed Dell about its broken promises on PVC and BFRs. Dell has sent emails back saying they are facing some challenges. However, these challenges have been met with solutions by Dell’s largest competitors including Apple and HP. Apple has completely eliminated PVC and BFRs from all their products and HP has eliminated these chemicals from a significant portion of their products. The solutions and alternatives exist and their supply chain is ready. Dell has run out of excuses.

Are they taking responsibility?

Question: How does Dell make sure that their computers aren't shipped to developing countries? And how much responsibility do they take for the health and environmental damages their products cause?

Answer: Dell was one of the first companies to implement a voluntary take back policy in 2006, which Greenpeace applauded. But today this policy still doesn’t extend to all countries where Dell products are sold. With the growing e-waste problem reaching, by U.N. estimates, 20-50 million tons annually, not taking a global and comprehensive approach to preventing Dell products from ending up in scrap yards is irresponsible.

It is important to remember that having a take back program alone isn’t enough. Without the elimination of PVC and BFRs from all electronics products, Dell is polluting our health and the environment through the use of these chemicals.

Thank You!

I want to thank everyone for spreading the message about Michael Dell and his broken promises. Tweeting, Facebooking, emailing, and calling – Dell is hearing your voice!

If you haven’t already, take action!

And if you have more questions, please post them in the comments.

Greenpeace's team on the Gulf Coast has been taking independent scientists, media teams, and local grassroots organizations out into Barataria Bay, one of the areas hardest hit by the oil disaster, to help assess the full scope of this tragedy and the true cost of our reliance on fossil fuels.  Every day we have been out on the water here, we have been joined by dozens of dolphins, sometimes playing in the distance and sometimes swimming right alongside the Greenpeace boats.

I have spent most of my life living near the ocean, I grew up on the coast of California and also lived on Florida's Gulf Coast. Watching diving pelicans and leaping dolphins has always been a joyful reminder of the wonder of the marine environment, and swimming in the sea gives me a sense of what it means to be a part of this wonderful planet.  But as the oil spreads throughout the Gulf, these have been turned into sad reminders of the immense damage that is being done.

Every time I see a pelican dive for fish here, I wonder how much oil is in the water, and how much is in the fish that it will take back to feed its nesting chicks. Seeing so many dolphins doesn't give us a joyful feeling; the sad reality is that all these dolphins we are seeing here are being pushed up against shore as their habitat is destroyed by millions of gallons of oil, as marine biologist and Greenpeace oceans campaign director John Hocevar explained to the Associated Press on one of our trips.

It gives me a sinking feeling when I think about what it means that seeing dozens of playful dolphins is actually a sign of disaster. It's the same feeling I get when I think about how nice it would be to cool off in the water - but of course the oil on the ocean surface reminds me why we can't. What does it mean when you can't swim in the ocean?

I don’t think anyone entirely knows how to deal with an environmental disaster that just keeps getting worse with no end in sight. Certainly we should stop drilling for oil offshore. But the problem goes deeper than the drill that BP drove into the seabed. Our reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal isn't just devastating a few ecosystems and local communities, it is driving global warming and acidfying the oceans, threatening the funadmental systems that sustain life on our planet. 

A clean energy revolution could move us away from fossil fuels, but it is going to take more than a speech from the oval office to get us there.  I hope we all take the lessons from the Gulf of Mexico with us as we push for an energy policy that puts people and the planet first and holds polluters accountable for the true cost of dirty and dangerous energy.

Most Americans recognize the BP Deepwater Disaster as the environmental catastrophe that it is and support all efforts being undertaken to hold BP accountable for the damage the company’s negligence has caused to Gulf Coast ecosystems and the livelihoods of Gulf Coast residents. But not Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas.

Proving just how out of touch he is with the American public — and how deeply he is in the pocket of corporate polluters like BP — Rep. Barton this morning decried what he sees as a “tragedy of the first proportion” — not, incredibly, the devastation being wrought in the Gulf, but the fact that a corporation like BP should be held accountable for the malfeasance and violation of public trust that caused that devastation by paying into an escrow account to compensate Americans impacted by the oil spill.

It’s really just mindboggling that any elected representative of the people of the USA should be standing up for little ol’ BP at a time when millions of Americans’ livelihoods are being destroyed. But that is exactly what Rep. Barton did.

See for yourself Rep. Barton’s shameful — and shameless — testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning:



Even a fellow Republican lawmaker is calling on Rep. Barton to step down from his post as the ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Many other Republicans have already attempted to distance themselves from Barton’s statement directed to BP CEO Tony Hayward that he is “ashamed” of President Obama’s efforts to hold BP accountable.

But the term “shakedown” has been getting thrown around by a lot of conservative and pro-corporate politicians lately to describe the $20 billion escrow account BP will be creating to compensate Gulf Coast residents affected by the tragedy. So it’s hard to imagine Barton is alone in feeling that the needs of BP should come before the needs of impacted Americans. Makes you wonder: What other politicians elected to represent us are actually more concerned about looking after their corporate donors even in a time of tragedy?

We the people should not stand for this. Since Barton apparently has more sympathy for a rich and powerful CEO of a foreign company than he does for his fellow Americans — whom he was elected to represent — then he absolutely should step down. And every single politician elected to represent Americans should be calling for him to do so.

Fred Ecks, a boat driver out in the Gulf, passed on his impressions of the spill from his first few days down there.

While we were on the water yesterday, there was a "Pan-Pan" radio call from the Coast Guard alerting all mariners to an emergency situation.  There was a fire aboard the Discoverer Enterprise oil collection ship at the Deepwater Horizon site.  This ship collects the oil from the containment cap at the well site.  It was one of those "Oh no, what now" moments.  Thankfully, that fire was put out quickly, but the trouble for wildlife will last a long, long time.

I arrived to the Gulf yesterday morning, and have taken the opportunity to see the Deepwater Horizon tragedy firsthand.  From media reports and photos I knew it would be bad, but I was still unprepared for what I've already seen here.

I'm struck by the quantity of dolphins here.  They are all over the place, all the time.  I've never been anywhere in the world with this many dolphins!  It's heartbreaking to see them all around, swimming in oil-polluted water.

We met some Fish & Wildlife folks on the water yesterday.  They're working to capture oiled birds for cleaning and rehabilitation.  One of the guys explained the process: They identify an oiled bird, and move toward it.  The bird takes flight if it can.  They'll follow the bird for about a minute.  If the bird keeps going, they leave it alone. If it's weak and unable to fly longer, they capture it and bring it in.  The trouble is, by the time a bird has become weakened by the oil, it's suffering liver failure from the toxicity, just like we would.  The focus is on capturing and rehabilitating mating adults rather than chicks, since the chicks often will die before reaching mating age.

The trouble is, there's simply not anywhere nearly enough capacity to save wildlife on this scale.  As one of the Fish & Wildlife guys said, "This is like peeing in the wind."  It feels hopeless, yet they carry on as best they can.

There seems to be confusion as to where the oil will go.  I'm no expert on oil spills, but I'm an experienced boater with knowledge of winds and currents, and I find myself clueless about where to expect oil versus clean water.  Yet even the officials and scientists appear to be suffering the same confusion -- the oil booms will be placed where no oil shows up sometimes, and then there's a mad rush when the oil starts flowing somewhere else.

I'm a little shellshocked by everything I've seen here these past few days.  I can't quite manage to comprehend the magnitude of this problem -- as a compatriot pointed out, this isn't a spill, it's a spew; it doesn't stop!  I sure hope we can at least quickly reach a point of stopping the spew.  I don't even want to think about the looming hurricane season.

Let's all keep Obama's and BP's focus on this disaster!

Take action and tell Congrees that now is the time for a permanent ban on ALL new drilling.

Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution is an in-depth analysis of how we can move successfully to clean, renewable energy by 2050 while leaving dirty, dangerous fossil fuels behind. We teamed up with scientists, engineers, universities and institutes from around the world to draft this blueprint for how we get from where we are now to a green and peaceful future — in other words, where we need to be.

We are now happy to announce that we have rolled out an Energy [R]evolution iPhone app so you can access our report on the go! The future now fits right in your pocket.

Here are some of the app's key features:

• Provides a shorter, lighter and more concise version of the report.
• Find out all that you could ever want to know about the report in our FAQ section.
• Provide a boost to the [R]evolution by using the quick signup tool and taking actions online. (*Note: By signing up through the app, you'll get Greenpeace International's monthly newsletter and action alerts. Sign up for Greenpeace USA's monthly newsletter and action alerts here.)
• The app also provides an opportunity to make contributions to support Greenpeace's work to ensure the Energy [R]evolution becomes a reality.

You can read more about the app here or download the app now and be a part of the Energy [R]evolution!

(Please note, however, that the app is for the global scenario specifically. You can find out more about our sustainable energy scenario for the USA here.)

President Obama's Oval Office speech tonight could be a turning point of historical significance for his legacy, America's security, and the world that we leave our children. Will President Obama give a grandiose speech followed by more politically expedient baby-steps, or will he set America on a new path?

View more images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tonight, the President owes America the unflinching, spin-free truth: The only way to avoid more fossil fuel disasters is to move aggressively away from dangerous energy sources like oil and coal. We have all seen the devastating pictures from the Gulf: ruined beaches, oil-slicked birds, dead and dying marine life. I have witnessed it first hand. It is a mess we can't clean up. No matter what you hear, the best-case scenario is that we clean up 5-10% of the oil.

This is a turning point of immense historical significance. If we miss the turn, we miss the chance to grab our future with both hands. For President Obama to show the leadership that people dreamed he would when sweeping him into office, he needs to declare a new Apollo program, the moon mission that invests in energy efficiency, clean energy, electric cars, public transportation, geothermal energy and safe biofuels that will help kick our oil addiction by 2030. President Obama must stand in the Oval Office tonight and turn away from apologies, excuses, and finger pointing to seize this moment for America's future.

Read more on Huffington Post

On May 20, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, leaders of the 9-11 Commission, told a Congresssional committee that six years after the commission completed its work, the federal government has not taken the steps needed to implement the commission’s recommendations.

The next day, President Barack Obama announced the formation of a commission to investigate the Deepwater Horizon blowout oil disaster and the safety of offshore drilling.  He appointed former Florida Senator Bob Graham (D) and former EPA Administrator William Reilly to head the panel.

Flash forward ten years. It’s 2020. Will Sen. Graham and Mr. Reilly be sitting before a Congressional committee, testifying that, six years after their commission completed its work, the federal government still has not acted on the key recommendations of its report?

The high water level is marked in oil on the grasses of Grand Terre Island, Louisiana June 14, 2010. View more images from the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill.

Of course the more immediate concern is: Will the commission even make the right recommendations about America's energy future?

“Blue ribbon” commissions aside, there is one striking similarity between the 9-11 attacks and the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster: in each case the sitting president found himself with significant support from the American public to take bold steps to remedy the situation. George Bush squandered his moment, using the 9-11 tragedy to launch opportunistic wars. What will Obama do with his moment?

So far, the BP Deepwater Disaster commission is not off to a good start. Three weeks after the formation of the commission was announced, the seven-member panel still lacks three members. Of the four named, two — Mr. Reilly and Alaska’s Fran Ulmer — have strong oil industry ties.

Mr. Reilly is on the Board of Directors at Conoco-Phillips. In an August 2009 sale, Conoco-Phillips finished second — right behind BP — in snapping up deepwater leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Surely, Conoco has an interest in seeing deepwater drilling continue.

Ms. Ulmer, Alaska’s former lieutenant governor and outgoing chancellor of the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), has a long history of accepting campaign contributions from the oil industry, including contributions from BP going back to her 1990 candidacy for the Alaska House of Representatives. As chancellor of UAA, Ms. Ulmer presided over the stifling of marine conservationist and oil spill expert, Professor Rick Steiner, who was harassed into resigning over his warnings about the environmental hazards of offshore drilling.

As if that doesn’t cast enough doubt on the impartiality and independence of the commission, last Friday Mr. Obama’s energy and climate czar, Carol Browner, told The Hill that she hopes the administration can persuade the yet-to-be-named commissioners to curtail the six-month moratorium on offshore drilling.

As Ms. Browner was busy undermining the commission, Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), Congress’s top recipient of BP campaign contributions in the 2008 election cycle ($17,000), sent a letter to the White House claiming that the six-month moratorium will mean the loss of 38,000 jobs. Which begs two questions: 1) Did Ms.. Landrieu take into account the effect of Gulf cleanup jobs? And 2) Why not just send the bill to BP?

Across the environmental movement, activists are cringing with anticipation that Mr. Obama will use the catastrophe in the gulf to justify more loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. Even though the documented carelessness and incompetence of nuclear engineers rivals their oil industry counterparts, the nuclear crowd doesn’t have an active disaster up and running this week.

President Obama has a unique opportunity to have a “clean slate” discussion with Americans about energy policy. Will he bungle his chance the same way President Bush did? If the establishment of commissions is any guide, the outlook isn’t hopeful.

An astonishing sight was to be seen the other day on the shores of Louisiana, where offshore oil workers, sidelined by the U.S. Government’s moratorium issued in response to the BP Deepwater Disaster, were clamoring to resume work on their rigs. The dissonance between the risks and rewards of this dangerous livelihood and the health and welfare of all of our lives is drastic.

View more images from the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill

These workers are not to blame for this dissonance. The overconsumption of our lifestyles and our nation’s idiotic energy policies are to blame, as well as some villainous oil lobbyists and a Congress that does not have the courage to stand up to the largest polluters nor to tell the truth about our urgent need to change our environmental ways.

These off-shore oil workers will likely have to move to other parts of the country for work, and it probably won’t pay as well. (Perhaps dangerous cleanup or rigging jobs will still exist.) Also, most of the Gulf Coast’s normal businesses will be shuttered. Tourism and fishing and all the businesses that depend on healthy coastlines will be harmed for generations – if not forever – by this sickening oil spill.  

We always talk about a transition to a clean energy economy, but treat it like a philosophical problem instead of the most urgent undertaking we have. These workers are standing next to a catastrophe caused by their work and they still demand to go back because they need jobs and money. The time for philosophical musing or political jockeying lapsed over ten years ago.

We have a global emergency.

We must transform our economy, retrain works, and retrofit and build new infrastructure. We must create a real Energy Revolution... NOW.

This post comes from Willie at Greenpeace UK.

So, what's your price to sell out the whales?

Some envelopes stuffed with cash? A nice big check for development aid? All-expenses paid trips to exotic locations? Or some dubious entertainment, including 'good girls'?

Welcome, dear friends, to the world of international diplomacy, Japanese government style. Yesterday, in a shocking expose, the Sunday Times showed the tawdry reality of Japan's vote-buying tactics to undermine the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Using undercover reporters, they managed to elicit scandalous accounts of just what the government of Japan offers to get the support of developing nations in the Caribbean, the Pacific, and Africa.

Greenpeace and other environmental groups have been banging on about this for years, but never have the salacious details been quite so vividly exposed. It's further proof, if any were needed, that there is no groundswell of support for whaling within the IWC or the international community. Indeed, many of the national representatives attending these talks don't represent their governments, their people, or any sort of scientific advice when it comes to deciding how to vote. Japan's support instead is held together with wads of cash, tied overseas aid, and some dubious entertainment of key officials.

Is this what we expect from the international body responsible for looking after the world's whale populations?

Given the depths the government of Japan will apparently plumb to secure votes at the IWC, it doesn't take a genius to work out that similar things are probably happening in other fora. To help defeat a trade ban on Atlantic bluefin for example.

It makes a mockery of any countenance of a compromise deal that would sanction and legitimise Japan's whaling program, to know that the perceived international support has such sordid origins.

And it further brings into question just what the Japanese taxpayers must be thinking. Not only do they unwittingly pay to support the whaling operations, and public campaigns to encourage the consumption of whale meat, but their money is also being used to bribe developing nations to support this dying industry. An industry so few people in Japan even care about.

Perhaps most sickening is that Japanese taxpayers are also paying for the politically-motivated trial of anti-whaling activists, including the Greenpeace activists known as the Tokyo Two. Their 'crime' was to uncover corruption at the heart of the whaling industry, and they now face the very real prospect of one-and-a-half years in prison.

Given the amount of corruption the Sunday Times has uncovered at the heart of the Japanese government's international diplomatic efforts, it's clear it's not our activists who should be in the dock.

Take action and tell President Obama to say NO to commercial whaling. 

Greetings from Grand Isle, Louisiana, one of the growing number of places unlucky enough to win a "heavily oiled" classification on the government maps tracking the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite BP's efforts to keep it under wraps, we're here to document the impacts of the spill. The public has a right - and a responsibility - to know the true cost of our continued reliance on offshore oil, and fossil fuels in general.

Yesterday we saw part of the evidence of that cost. Walking through Grand Isle State Park, we came across a tidal flat that was littered with tens of thousands of dead hermit crabs. It was a depressing scene, and took me all the way back to my first visit to the beach, over 35 years ago, when discovering hermit crabs at Rocky Neck State Park in Connecticut helped inspire a life-long love of the ocean.

Now, I realize it can seem a little odd to wax poetically about hermit crabs when we're talking about the biggest environmental disaster in North American history. As John Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show, entire communities along the Gulf Coast are reeling right now, and many species - sea birds, turtles, and even a population of sperm whales - are being pushed to the brink of extinction. Why should anyone care about a few hermit crabs?

The problem is that it's all connected. Hermit crabs may not be quite as cute as sea turtles or as strikingly beautiful as roseate spoonbills, but they are a bellwether for the health of the Gulf of Mexico. Hermit crabs stay largely out of site, eking out a living in sandy and marshy sand and mud. When the sediment fills up with oil, so do the shells of the hermit crabs, and they suffocate. So if all the hermit crabs on a beach die, it's pretty safe to say that the entire top layer of sand is full of oil - and no longer able to sustain life other than bacteria.


And it doesn't stop there, because hermit crabs are an important part of marine food webs, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. Shore birds like spoonbills, egrets, and herons feed heavily on hermit crabs, and so do nurse sharks, flounders, and many other types of fish. Whether they feed on oiled hermit crabs and are poisoned by the toxic mix of oil and chemical dispersants or go hungry because large portions of their food supply have succumbed to this disaster, the impacts of the hermit crab die off we saw last night don't end with the hermit crabs.

The true cost of oil doesn't end at the gaspump.

For the oceans,
John Hocevar

 

If we’ve learned anything from the BP Deepwater Disaster, it’s that we can’t afford not to transition to clean renewable energy and get off of dirty fossil fuels pronto.

The American public knows that: 71% of Americans now support regulating greenhouse gas emissions according to a new poll. And some 72% oppose new offshore drilling according to another. So the fact that the Senate defeated Alaskan Sen. Lisa Murkowski's pro-coal, pro-oil, anti-regulation, anti-envronment bill by such a narrow margin is a bit of a shock.

Let me just say straight out that it's certainly good news that the Senate voted the right way. But it should have been a blowout, not 53 to 47. The Senate is, obviously, well behind the public in terms of being in touch with reality about America’s energy future.

With images like those in this video making headlines on a daily basis, it's beyond me how 47 Senators could still vote on behalf of Big Oil to preserve the status quo:


You can read our full response to the vote on Senator Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act for more. And if you still think that oil spills are just somehow a regrettable side effect of what is otherwise a completely necessary reliance on oil as an energy source, you haven't checked out our Energy [R]evolution report yet, which shows how we can leave fossil fuels behind while transitioning to a sustainable energy economy.

At the end of the day, of course, it’s not what’s on the scoreboard that matters but whether you have another loss or win in the standings. We chalked up another win for the environment yesterday, but you can bet the fossil fuel industry’s other champions are already lining up to finish the task of gutting the Clean Air Act on behalf of big polluters that Murkowski started.

The next attack against the Clean Air Act in the Senate will likely be launched by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a coal country Democrat who has the support of other Democratic Senators that actually voted against Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act. So stay tuned, given the deep pockets of our fossil fuels opponents and their allies in Congress, it’s going to take plenty of teamwork to chalk up the next victory for the environment.

For the last month, I have opened my computer each morning with a sigh and often a cringe. It’s the way that I have been starting my day for weeks now.

Scouring the homepages of news web sites is pat of my morning routine, as regular as my cup of coffee. Being informed is a human natured comfort; something that leaves you a little more prepared to tackle the day ahead.

Lately however, I have grown afraid of what the headlines at the top of each web page read. I know one or more of them will be an update on the oil spill and I have grown accustom to being afraid of what will come next. I cringe to see the latest estimate of gallons, how an attempt to cap the leak has failed, another insensitive quote from Tony Hayward, or photos of white birds with wings and bodies slicked in burnt orange. Beginning my days with these things has made the desire to be informed somewhat of a burden.

I am usually a mess by 10 a.m.

Weary. Tired. Hopeless. Nervous.

Yesterday, the latest main headline scrolled across many news organization’s web sites announced that BP was indeed moving forward to burn large amounts of oil. Immediately, I am flooded with mixed emotions. This time it’s anger, curiosity and fear. Is this really the best option? Can we not devise any other alternative? Is it safe for the environment or others in the Gulf? Is this a half-baked idea, decided under overwhelming pressure and haste?

According to an Associated Press story, BP will devise a burning rig and use a device called the EverGreen Burner to turn the flow of oil into a vapor and then is burned. Perhaps if this was exactly how it occurred, it was safe and environmentally friendly, I would feel more comfortable about this being a possible solution.

But there are a lot of risks to consider.

Environmental:

The first are the environmental effects of this process. What will be the consequences of vaporizing the crude oil that has already made people sick and killed animals? Documents from Total E&P, a multinational energy company, said that the burning oil that would release sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and methane would pose a “moderate risk to the environment.”

Moderate by definition means average or temperate. But can this term really be used in relation to environmental damage or health? The risks of the toxins being released into the environment from the burning oil are not exactly what I would call moderate.

Consider the details of some of the chemicals that will be released into the air from the oil being burned:

• Nitrous Oxides: These are greenhouse gases and ozone depleters that account for 6% of the heating effect in the atmosphere. They are also significant contributors to the formation of smog, which has an affect on the lives of both plant life and cause respiratory problems in humans. 
• Sulfur Dioxide: One of the releases that could come from burning the oil is Sulfur Dioxide, a compound known to also cause serious respiratory diseases, hinder breathing, and has the potential to lead to premature death. Both Nitrous Oxides and Sulfur Dioxide are also causes of acid rain, an occurrence that has damaged rivers, lakes, soil, forests, plants, animals and human health.
• Methane: It is a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than CO2. Methane is often produced from decay in landfills and the digestive process of animals.

The effects of these compounds on the environment are severe and lasting. It’s clear that burning the oil and the results of the event should not be taken lightly.

Safety:

Additionally, safety of people needs to be considered. The oil spill has already been the cause of 11 people’s deaths and now is possibly making the people cleaning it up sick.

For instance, the reliability of the equipment being used in this burning effort should also be questioned.

According to the Associated Press, it is unclear about how many times this "EverGreen Burner” has been used in situations such as this. It seems like this fact alone should have experts questioning whether or not it is safe to use this kind of equipment in an already dangerous situation.

BP also said it would be careful not to allow the flames and heat to endanger other vessels. Can this be guaranteed?

We take a risk of an oil spill occurring every day that we continue to drill offshore. Today, by using a technique to clean up a spill that is also an environmental and safety hazard, we could be exacerbating the effects of this event. Perhaps burning the oil can be done in a safe and effective way. Perhaps it is the best solution to remove the underwater islands in the Gulf.

However, we must be sure of that before decisions are made from haste and panic. BP was clearly irresponsible with the running of the Deepwater Horizon before this disaster happened. The company should be held to environmentally responsible standards when cleaning up the pieces.

Cindy Baxter is in Bonn, Germany and filed this report about the UN climate talks taking place.

As BP's oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, I'm sitting here in Bonn at the first full round of climate talks since the fiasco in Copenhagen.

Greenpeace has been bearing witness to the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill. Click here to read more blogs, view videos and more images.

We are doing our best to get this lot to make some progress and get an agreement that will prevent dangerous climate change.

But there are others here with a different view. The oil industry. The coal industry. The corporate lobby that whispers in Government ears — especially in the industrialized world.

The head of BP Germany and his political adviser have been here, as part of the Federation of German Industries´ delegation.

The Federation of German Industries is part of the Europe-wide business lobby trying to stop the EU from shifting its emissions reductions target from a paltry 20% to 30% by 2020, a shift that would provide the leadership that still appears to be missing in terms of getting to a strong deal to save the climate.

BP is not alone — Shell and Exxon are also here in Bonn, but none of them seem to be pushing for anything other than a business-as-usual future, a future choked by the polluting emissions from oil and coal.

I read today that BP´s 2009 response plan for the Gulf of Mexico lists a scientist who died in 2005 as one of their wildlife experts. It includes plans for rescuing walrus, sea lions, otters and seals, none of which live anywhere near the Gulf. Did they cut and paste it from an Alaska impact assessment?

So if that´s the quality of the information coming from one of the world´s largest companies, why should Governments believe the arguments put forward by their lobbyists?

Estimates are that the amount of oil spilled into the Gulf to date is around five days of US oil use. A strong climate deal would help us move to the clean energy future we need — or, as someone put it rather well the other day — we need “petroleum rehab." Now. Fast. More drilling for oil just ain´t gonna do that.

Ultimately, if that oil hadn´t spilled into the Gulf, it would end up in the sky. Neither is a sustainable option.

Time to end this madness?

Did you know that your refrigerator contains super greenhouse gases? These gases – called HFC or F-gas refrigerants– are a growing piece of the global warming problem.  They are 1400 times more powerful at warming the climate than carbon dioxide and Greenpeace has been working to eliminate them ever since they were introduced in the early 1990s.  And we did eliminate them in Europe, Asia, and South America.

It looks like we could finally see a major breakthrough on this front in the U.S..   
Help make sure this happens!

Recently, EPA proposed a new rule that would allow climate-friendly hydrocarbon refrigerants in the U.S. Until now hydrocarbons have been illegal here because of an outdated set of EPA regulations that restrict the types of refrigerants that can be used.

The U.S. is actually trailing most of the rest of the world in refrigeration technology. Back in 1993 Greenpeace developed a hydrocarbon refrigerator – called GreenFreeze - and so far Europe, Asia and many other regions have transitioned to this technology. Not only is it free of super-greenhouse gases, but the hydrocarbons are actually more efficient coolants, and can reduce the amount of energy needed to run the refrigerator as well.

Today 40% of global refrigerator production is GreenFreeze, and nearly 400 million units have sold in total worldwide – but none in the U.S.

Until now.

With EPA’s new rule, manufacturers could soon be allowed to sell GreenFreeze in the U.S. Some companies have already expressed their interest.  This means that when it comes time to buy your next refrigerator, you could buy one that is climate-friendly and possibly more efficient too.

But the rule is so far just a proposal, and it took years for EPA to even get this far. And there are other cooling sectors – like air conditioning – that have similar climate-friendly options that EPA hasn’t addressed yet.

We need to encourage EPA to take the next steps to finalize this rule ASAP and urge them to also consider similar action in other cooling sectors soon.  

EPA is accepting public comments on the rule until July 9th, so act now to let them know that you want to be able to buy GreenFreeze in the U.S!

 

Join us as we take an insider look at leading supermarkets to see how they're coping with their status as ocean destroyers. Will their support group help them realize they have a problem and begin to make improvements? Or, will they spiral further towards the bottom of the barrel? In the latest edition of Ocean Destroyers Anonymous, the group focuses on the 'Six Steps to Recovery.' Trader Joe's attempts to mentor Costco and Meijer reveals a secret 'embrace.'

Recent scientific studies have shown that 90 percent of the world’s top predatory fish have disappeared, and that unless current fishing practices change, global fish stocks will collapse by the middle of this century. Supermarkets ring up nearly $16 billion in seafood sales every year, and much of it is caught or raised unsustainably. Supermarkets have a responsibility to their customers and the environment to avoid trading in seafood from destructive fisheries and fish farms.

By encouraging supermarkets to keep red listed seafood off the shelves, the oceans can become healthier and more robust.

We deserve to purchase seafood from supermarkets that care about the condition of our oceans. The days of selling fish with no regard for the environment are over. As a consumer, you can help support seafood sustainability and ocean protection. Flex your power as a consumer. Tell the largest U.S. supermarket retailers to adopt sustainable seafood policies, stop selling destructively fished seafood, and provide informative labeling so customers, like us, can choose the most sustainable seafood and avoid the most imperiled fish.

President Obama asked yesterday "whose ass to kick" over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. I have a few ideas.

1. Tony Hayward. BP CEO Tony Hayward and his company should be criminally charged for the reckless endangerment of their workers, for violations of the Clean Water Act by dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf, and for stealing the income of the people who rely on the Gulf for their livelihoods. Instead, seven of my colleagues are being aggressively charged with felonies for peacefully calling on the President to stop offshore Arctic drilling. Arrest the real criminals.

2. Lisa Murkowski. Senator Lisa Murkowski is just one of many of our elected officials who seem to be working for the fossil fuel industries instead of in the interest of the American people. As the Gulf Region watches in horror at the impacts of the oil spill on its coasts, its waters, and its economy, the US Senate is scheduled to consider a proposal tomorrow from Senator Lisa Murkowski that would protect oil companies and other big polluters by gutting America's Clean Air Act.

3. His Own and His Staffs'. Obama and his top staff must take responsibility for their distinct lack of vision in a time of oil, national security, and climate crises, clinging to weak Senate climate legislation instead of pivoting towards a vision of getting the U.S. off of oil by 2030. A smart first step would be to call for all cars to be plug-in electrics by 2030.

 

 

The Energy [R]evolution

To eliminate the risks of another BP Deepwater Disaster, we must look away from the dinosaur fossil fuel companies of our past and towards a bright future of clean, renewable energy. It is possible right now to make the changes we need for that future. Don't believe those who tell you that it's too hard or too expensive.

Read more at Huffington Post >>

The best way to stop oil spills from happening is pretty simple, actually: Leave the oil in the ground where it belongs.

If you think that's not possible, or that it would mean shivering in the dark, or that millions of people would have to go without energy and jobs, you'd probably be forgiven for thinking that. That's the line that Big Oil and King Coal have been feeding us. But it's wrong on all counts.

Read more and download the report (PDF)

We teamed up with more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes, and the renewable energy industry to create our new report, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable USA Energy Outlook. The report lays down a blueprint for how we ensure our emissions peak by 2015, as the Nobel prize-winning IPCC says they must if we’re to avoid runaway global warming, while phasing out nuclear and fossil fuel energy. It shows how we can provide about 96% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2050, and in the process create 1.1 million jobs in the renewables sector alone by 2030.

Why a [r]evolution? Moving from the dirty fossil fuels of the past and onto the clean, green renewable energy sources of the future requires an evolution AND a revolution. (And yes, electronics geeks, that’s the symbol for [r]esistance there as well.)

We need a [r]evolution because business as usual is not going to stop the tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil spilling into our waters, scores of workers losing their lives to accidents in coal mines around the world, or the countless other disasters we are all facing due to our reliance on dirty energy.

Despite all the evidence that we’re paying far too high a price for our dependence on fossil fuels, Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski is trying to roll back the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions — a critical tool in making the Energy [R]evolution a reality.

Your Senators can help jumpstart the energy revolution by defeating Murkowski's Dirty Air Act and having the courage to end our dependence on coal and oil. Write to them now.

Yesterday in Aomori, Japan the trial of whale defenders Junichi and Toru — the "Tokyo Two" — came to a close.

During the long trial, the defense outlined the meticulous investigation by Junichi and Toru into whale meat embezzlement, and in this way put whaling on trial. Whistleblowers and even hostile witnesses corroborated the evidence the Tokyo Two found in 2008. The evidence has been overwhelming and would under normal circumstances in any democracy would lead to an acquittal. The request by the prosecution for 18 months in jail is outrageous and politically motivated. If imposed, the sentence would be the longest jail term for any Greenpeace activist — ever. The Japanese government is aware of the evidence put forth in this case and the outpouring of support for the innocent activists, yet they continue to try to silence the Tokyo Two to support their whaling program.

Not only have outraged and sympathetic citizens taken action on behalf of the Tokyo Two worldwide, but human rights groups, and legal experts and politicians including Desmond Tutu have condemned the unjust arrest of the Tokyo Two.

Even the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated that the 26-day detention of Junichi and Toru violated their human rights. How can Japan request jail time when it has already violated the the rights of the Tokyo Two through their detention? A request for jail time is a disrespect to accepted international human rights standards, and not to mention, disproportionate to the alleged crime of taking a box.

We acted peacefully and only in the public interest – to gain evidence of embezzlement of whale meat paid for by the Japanese public. As a signatory to international human rights treaties, Japan must uphold our right to take such action and we trust the court will recognise this in its decision.” -- Junichi Sato.

The demand for jail comes just as crucial talks are to begin at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco where Japan deals internationally to continue its corrupt whaling program. Around the world people are calling for an end to whaling and an end to the prosecution of the Junichi and Toru, two of the boldest whales and oceans defenders. TAKE ACTION! Demand justice for the Tokyo Two and the whales.

Friday is a day that just might live in climate infamy. On Thursday, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski will introduce her "resolution of disapproval" (S.J.Res. 26), aka the “Dirty Air Act.” Take action now and urge your Senator to vote against the Dirty Air Act. The goal of this Amendment is to take away the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate dangerous greenhouse gases.

Seems strange. Where have I heard this issue before?

Well, the Supreme Court for one. In 2007, the Supreme Court offered its decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA (549 U.S. 497), which interpreted Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act’s seemingly non-discretional language. The Court found that Section 202 required the EPA Administrator to regulate carbon dioxide and other harmful gases that “in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

The EPA responded to the Court’s remand with an endangerment finding, which enabled them to draft new standards to curb greenhouse gases while simultaneously raising mileage standards.

Higher mileage standards mean less pain at the pump for the consumer, less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a greater role for industry to innovate. Seems too good to be true.

However, Murkowski’s resolution would overturn the EPA’s endangerment finding, thereby gutting the Clean Air Act. Also, this would have the effect of rolling back the agreement struck by the Obama administration, NHTSA and EPA to increase light duty vehicles efficiency standards, reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

Despite this, Murkowski and her co-sponsors are pushing an industry-lobbyist written amendment to reverse this decision legislatively by stripping the EPA’s ability to regulate harmful greenhouse gases.

Something just doesn’t seem right about Murkowski’s actions. Sure, Greenpeace has shown exactly how wedded to polluting industries Murkowski is during our Polluter Harmony campaign. Yeah, Murkowski has been continually criticized for the cozy links between her and energy lobbyists at Bracewell & Guliani (this legislation came from one of those links). And so what if she takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from the polluting energy industry.

Despite these egregious ethical failings, I think that something else is going on here.

This vote is about whether the Senate supports the President.

If the Senate votes to stop EPA action on climate change, they will be removing Presidential powers – a move obviously designed to show disapproval of the Executive's judgment and prerogative to develop rules and enforce the law. This is a vote of distrust.

Second, because the vote is about removing Presidential authority, it is also going to be an indication about whether the Democrats can organize themselves or not. So, it might be useful to remind leadership that if Murkowski wins, Obama looks weak.

Especially at this late stage, the leaders with the most clout and interest in rallying the necessary votes to defeat Murkowski's Dirty Air Act should be President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Despite the uncapped, massive volume of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, if Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act goes forward, the US will use 450 million more barrels of oil by blocking new clean car standards. (See: Lisa Jackson’s Testimony before Energy and Commerce Committee, April 28, 2010). Also, by having less efficient vehicles, the American people are losing billions at the gas pump. We need Obama and Reid to lead us toward an end to our addiction to fossil fuels.

Now is not the time to make us more dependent upon polluting fossil fuels, while simultaneously eliminating the ability of the EPA to regulate the very emissions that they make.

This post is by Molly Dorozenski, a Greenpeace USA media officer who is on the ground in Louisiana bearing witness to the impacts of the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill.

Last Friday, I found myself in Pensacola, Florida getting ready to greet the oil as it hit Florida’s white sand beaches. But just as I arrived, we started hearing reports that the oil had arrived in unprecedented amounts in Barataria Bay, and the barrier islands that served as breeding grounds for the area’s birds.

The very first photographs of oil-covered pelicans had started to hit the newspapers. As BP’s latest attempt to stem the oil flow seemed to be succeeeding, we were seeing the beginning of the worst effects of the oil spill we had seen yet — plainly suffering wildlife that cannot be protected or rescued fast enough.

River Shay walks his dog Smash in the front yard of his Grand Isle, Louisiana house planted with crosses with the names some of the marine life, seafood dishes and recreational activiites that are being lost due oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico. © Jose-Luis Magana/Greenpeace View more images of the oil spill on Flickr

Grand Isle is a vacation and weekend fishing spot for Louisianans, a long pretty stretch of sand scattered with small motels and cottages with cheerful names and marinas at either end. What would be a place of leisure has been totally transformed — a newly-erected symbolic graveyard for everything this community has lost, courtesy (they say) of BP and the federal government: “Sandcastles,” “Seafood Gumbo,” “Sea Turtles” “Redfish” — dozens of white crosses with different labels. Down at the marina, there are folks who have been coming to Grand Isle for years — they can no longer fish or swim, but they’re coming here anyway. They’re dumbstruck. The beaches of Grand Isle are patroled by BP and closed to the public — you can see the workers from a walkway at Grand Isle State Park where locals and media have lined up to watch oil shoveled endlessly into bags.

A little ways off by boat — not more than a 10-minute boat ride — you can visit Queen Bess Island, home to the endangered Brown Pelican, a bird that has recovered from past population problems related to pesticides. When we visited, the island was surrounded by booms and boats couldn’t get very close, but you could count probably 10-15 pelicans that were partly or fully covered in oil. Many of them would not survive the night. Since we’re not trained to rescue them ourselves, we called in what we had seen to wildlife rescue — we know that teams are going back and forth to the islands, but it’s frustrating to see no rescue teams there. You just feel helpless.

At Grand Terre, a bigger nearby island, the beach was covered in oil.  It was on the sand, and there were thick pools of it along the edge in the water. Dirty sorbent booms had washed up on the shores, totally saturated in oil. Again, we saw no BP workers — where are the 20,000 workers that President Obama says are out here cleaning up this mess? And aren’t we all tired of cleaning up after dirty energy? When will we have an energy policy that protects the things we love from catastrophes like this? This has to be the moment of change, unless we want to see this and feel like this again and again.

The locals here know that it’s going to be a long time, decades, before Grand Isle is the place that they remember. This is the new Gulf Coast. You can’t clean it up much at all, and the little that could be done isn’t being done fast enough. As the oil spreads through the Gulf tainting the waters, the islands, and the wildlife, BP and the President stand up at press conferences and tell us they’re doing all they can. But we’ve seen the truth and it’s not pretty — it’s a failed energy policy, a failed response, and a failure of humanity.

Some say that Bonn is going as well as the the Bali negotiations in 2007 were going at this point in the process. The negotiators may soon have a negotiating text ready for the next round of talks, happening in Bonn this August. The most troublesome negotiating text regards “land use, land use change, and forestry” (also known as LULUCF), which contains a loophole large enough to negate all the pollution cuts under Kyoto.

Wealthy countries are scheming to include tricky accounting to avoid reducing global warming pollution. Developing countries are working hard to fix this loophole.

While negotiators are making progress in many other areas, the LULUCF shenanigans beg the question: Is everyone negotiating in good faith?

Comparing Bonn to Bali seems far-fetched. The Bali climate summit resulted in the Bush administration agreeing to a 2-year plan to culminate in a global climate agreement covering all the key issues. The Bali Action Plan deadline was the meeting in Copenhagen last December, and we saw how that turned out.

The Bush administration was filled with climate deniers and probably would not have cared so much that Copenhagen failed. President Obama, on the other hand, cared a lot about the outcome of Copenhagen, and I believe him when he says he wants the US to be part of a global climate treaty. Nonetheless, the Obama administration’s perspective and strategy on the international climate negotiations remains curious.

The US government pointed to the Copenhagen Accord as a laudable outcome of Copenhagen, as well as the result of US leadership. But this Accord did not really fulfill the Bali Action Plan. All countries did not sign it, and it was not a legal document. There are two reasons why the US having praised Copenhagen relates to problems with the negotiating strategy now in Bonn, especially since they keep bringing up the Accord.

The Copenhagen Accord really was a summary of all the political progress that had been made since Bali. Large developing countries like China, Brazil, and India for the first time announced targets and deadlines for reducing global warming pollution and protecting forests. Wealthy countries announced significant financial contributions, for helping poor countries adapt to the effects of climate change caused by wealthy countries. It makes sense to laud these developments, as long as we point out the truth that they are far from enough. Praising Copenhagen lowered the bar for what we can expect from the US position.

Even more relevant to continuing negotiations in Bonn, in hindsight the second reason that praising the Copenhagen Accord is problematic is the US doesn’t really agree with it. Almost as soon as the negotiators were back in Washington, they were contradicting what they signed. The Accord called for significant climate finance to be housed in and distributed by the UNFCCC, which the administration argues now should be managed elsewhere. Even it didn’t conflict with what the US signed in Copenhagen, this is a problematic change of position. There are few venues Parties could agree on for equitably assisting developing countries deal with climate change – the World Bank being one of the less transparent and less green alternatives promoted by the United States.

There is now agreement by all Parties in Bonn that a green climate fund will be established. The US says they like the World Bank as a home for climate funding because the bank has a proven track record of being able to manage large funding streams, and that the US is extremely worried about accountability. This argument really is ironic since the US also is not providing much money, and that the administration is admittedly using double counting in coming up with fast-start finance. Insufficient climate finance from the United States is the biggest obstacle to a global treaty, a problem that – unlike a commitment to emissions reductions – does need to be solved by Congress. So far, the administration has managed to scrounge up less than half a billion dollars.

Since the US negotiators constantly refer to the need for legislation, it does not bode well that the latest Kerry-Lieberman ‘climate’ legislation, the American Power Act, includes little to no long term international climate finance, and nothing for reducing deforestation. In comparison, Norway just signed a $1 billion agreement for a moratorium on deforestation in Indonesia. Certainly this bilateral agreement is another reason that progress is being made in Bonn on deforestation. Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) is believed to be one area where all countries are very close to an agreement.

The Tokyo Two trial has just come to end in Japan today with the prosecutor asking the judge to sentence Junichi and Toru to 18 months in jail. This would be the longest jail term for any Greenpeace activist in the organisation’s forty-year history.

TAKE ACTION >> Demand justice for the Tokyo Two and the whales

Junichi sent this email out to all of our supporters for World Oceans Day.

 

 

Dear Friend,

I am happy to be able to send this message from Tokyo to you today and thank you for your support.

Greenpeace has been peacefully protesting for environmental protection for decades. What started in one man's front room in Vancouver, before I was even born, is now a global force for good.

You're helping to keep that history and tradition alive. But as my colleague Toru Suzuki and I know all too well, speaking up for our fragile earth can pose serious risks.

June 8th is World Oceans Day. We can celebrate the fact that we know so much more about our Blue Planet than ever before. We have sent submarines to the deepest canyons and sailed every part of the world, discovering new species and ecosystems - and how they are connected. We have seen how overfishing just one species can have devastating effects on an entire ecosystem and we understand the urgent need to protect our oceans. With your help we have been taking direct action and campaigning to save our seas.

In Japan we have been working to end whaling since our office opened 20 years ago. Japanese whaling is one of the most extreme examples of the needless waste of ocean life. Two years ago along with my colleague Toru, we took action to turn the tide on whaling here at home in Japan. And for the last two years we have paid the price for that peaceful protest. We were arrested and held without charge for 23 days - tied to chairs while we were interrogated, without our lawyers present. We have been charged with theft and trespass for taking action to secure the evidence of organized theft and embezzlement at the highest levels.

I know what I did was right. Our prosecution is political and our human rights have been abused. Despite that, and despite countless protests worldwide, Toru and I may still go to jail, for up to ten years.

We're in court again on World Oceans Day - for the final part of our trial. So, I reach out to you, my fellow Rainbow Warrior, to make sure that your voice is heard loud and clear here in Tokyo. Please take action.

Top Image: A sketch of Junichi Sato, Tadano Yasushi (lawyer) and Toru Suzuki (left to right) in court. © Greenpeace/ Molly Intersimone

 

Today at high noon, Greenpeace, along with Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, Energy Action Coalition, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 350.org, Center for Biological Diversity and Hip Hop Caucus, articulated the outrage Americans everywhere are feeling by making a citizen’s arrest of BP CEO Tony Haward.

Today we mark the 46^th day of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, at this point the worst in American history. Millions of gallons of oil and toxic dispersants have entered the delicate ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, BP CEO Tony Hayward recently complained that he wants his "life back." He has since recognized the selfishness behind his statement, but what have we, the concerned citizens, realized since this incident?

Rob Weissman, president of Public Citizen, center, speaks flanked by Rev. Lennox Yearwood, of Hip Hop Caucus, left, and Phil Radford of Greenpeace. View more images from the citizens arrest protest on our Flickr page.

What have we done to make sure that this doesn’t happen again?

Have we learned any lessons from this and other environmental catastrophes?

It appears as though our nation is becoming ‘used’ to oil spills. Ixtoc I in the 70’s, Exxon Valdez in the 80’s, Mega Borg in the 90’s, and now the Deepwater Horizon. All told, hundreds of millions of gallons of oil have terrorized our waterways and countless lives have been affected by these spills.

Why do we still permit this industry to thrive (Note: BP has legally escaped paying $172,508,633 in royalties to US taxpayers on leases it operates in the Gulf of Mexico, but has made $6 billion in profits over the first quarter of this year) despite the fact that the consequences of their actions remain clear? Isn’t one environmental disaster enough to stop the drills?

We stood in front of BP's DC offices and listed charges against the corporation, including worker safety and environmental violations, price-gouging, negligence, and the inability to adequately respond to the mounting catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding communities. The charges culminated in a finding of criminal negligence and the presentation of a prison jumpsuit fitted for CEO Tony Hayward.

Hayward oversees a company that is responsible for causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. BP has one of the worst records of environmental and worker safety violations of any oil company operating in the U.S. It has paid $730 million in fines and settlements for environmental and worker safety violations, was currently on probation for felony environmental violations, and has been found guilty of manipulating energy markets.

BP’s record is clear. Our response must be as well.

Eleven people are no longer alive because of BP’s negligent behavior. At least 491 birds, 227 turtles, and 27 mammals, including dolphins, have been found dead. The true extent of the environmental damage won’t be known for years. BP must be held accountable for its actions immediately.

Much of the press coverage of the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill in the Gulf describes the disaster as "unprecedented" when, in fact, it is not. Thirty one years ago today — June 3, 1979 — Pemex's Ixtoc I exploratory well suffered a blowout resulting in the largest peace-time oil spill in history. Some 3.3 million barrels (138,600,000 gallons) of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico over a period of almost 11 months until the well was finally capped on March 23, 1980.

Greenpeace has been bearing witness to the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill for the past month. Click here to read more blogs, view videos and more images.

The Ixtoc exploratory well blowout occurred in 160 feet of water. Yet much is being made of the fact that the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout that killed 11 people and is still gushing oil into the Gulf occurred in 5,000 feet of water. Indeed, the Obama Administration is putting the brakes on new exploratory drilling in deep water, but is issuing permits for new drilling in shallow waters. This policy move misses some important points.  

First, the Minerals Management Service issued a report in 2007 that shows blowouts are relatively common. As this report shows, from 1992 to 2006, there were 5,671 wells drilled in the federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, and 39 blowouts occurred, or one blowout per every 387 wells drilled.  

Second, the report shows that 19 of the 39 blowouts in this period occurred in water depths of zero to 200 feet.  

Of course the depth of the Deepwater Horizon blowout makes any response challenging. But stopping the flow of oil in shallow waters may not be any less challenging, as the Ixtoc blowout shows. The Timor Sea blowout in 2009 occurred in 250 feet of water, and oil spilled for more than ten weeks until the fifth attempt to drill a relief well was successful.  

The bottom line is that if we continue to drill off our coasts blowouts will happen, failsafe technologies and redundancies will fail, and oil will spill into the ocean. As conventional oil supplies are exhausted and oil companies turn to ultra-deep drilling and drilling in Alaska’s arctic and other non-conventional areas, the dangers and threats posed by oil drilling will increase by orders of magnitude. The issue is not deep water oil drilling versus shallow water oil drilling. The issue is oil drilling, period.  

Without a full ban on all new exploratory drilling in US waters, blowouts, death and large oil spills still threaten America’s coastlines.

President Obama pledged last week that under his administration all oil drilling will be safe. Greenpeace challenges the notion of  “safe oil drilling” based on this fact: At every stage of the oil lifecycle — from exploration to production and transportation — spills and leaks are commonplace occurrences. Even if not a drop of oil spilled, the oil is eventually burned, which contributes to global warming. From cradle to grave, oil brings with it enormous health, safety and environmental consequences. There’s just no such thing as “safe oil drilling.”

Luckily, we can get off oil. Greenpeace will be releasing its Advanced Energy [R]evolution report next week, showing how the US can reduce its oil consumption 80 percent by 2050 without turning to coal or nuclear power, but by relying on conservation and renewable forms of energy.

Pemex’s Ixtoc, BP’s Deepwater Horizon, and the Montara blowout in the Timor Sea are just three in a long list of tragic oil disasters that could have been avoided if the world had weaned itself from oil. The 31st anniversary of the Ixtoc blowout — while oil is still spilling into the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s Deepwater Horizon — should be impetus enough to start an energy revolution here at home.

Whales needed help and you jumped into action to help save them. While the Obama Administration proposed a deal that would re-open commercial whaling for the first time in over two decades, activists, like you, spoke up for the whales by saying, “enough is enough!”

And, our collective voices are being heard! Today, I had the pleasure of delivering your messages to the White House. Your voice joined a million others in speaking on behalf of whales all around the world. Thank you.

Activists and supporters showed their love for whales by creating origami whales, participating in our photo contest, taking action online, tweeting and spreading the word on Facebook.

Commercial whaling is cruel and unacceptable. That’s why this proposed deal to re-open commercial whaling is so outrageous. In just a few weeks, the International Whaling Commission will gather in Morocco to vote on changes to the international ban on commercial whaling.

The Obama Administration will be at these negotiations knowing that millions of Americans back home are routing for the whales and not the whalers! Keep your fingers (and fins) crossed that whales will be spared from the path of deadly harpoons.

But we're not out of the clear yet! You can still take action and tell President Obama that you oppose commercial whaling. One voice can go a long way. 

 

August is roughly two months away. There are approximately sixty days until the first day of that month. Nine weeks.

And that is too far for me to grasp right now or plan for. It seems like forever.

August always signals the start of fall: the start of a new semester at school, the end of picnics and camping. But today is only June 3. It’s just starting to get hot.

However, this past Sunday, news broke that exacerbated this feeling, dramatically extending the time between now and then.  Officials warned that it could take until the end of summer to cap the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. With this information, August seems like an entire lifetime away.

NOAA currently estimates that 210,000 gallons are spilling into the Gulf everyday, roughly twelve million more gallons will flow from the Deepwater Horizon, before it is stopped. But some say this is a conservative estimate, outside experts estimate upwards of 1 million gallons are spilling everyday, making it over 60 million gallons by the beginning of August.

The meaning and true impact of this statement is incomprehensible. It would be a severe understatement, perhaps even a belittlement, to say that the consequences of that much oil spilling into the Gulf will have widespread effects. 

 And while it is apparent that the spill has already taken a toll on ecosystems, fisherman, tourism and more, there are many other aspects along the coast that will be seriously threatened, should the oil continue to spill into the summer. 

One of these is the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary located approximately 100 miles off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. Flower Garden is the only National Marine sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico and only one of fourteen federally designated underwater areas protected by NOAA across the world. The place got its name because of its diverse array of brightly colored plants, coral, algae and animals.

The homepage of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation has named the Flower Garden, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Gray’s Reef off the coast of Georgia as being threatened by the spill. 

The Flower Garden’s web site also made a statement last week that NOAA has an emergency response plan in case it the oil spill grows enough to affect the area.

A growing body of research shows the plan may need to be used.

Researchers have recently discovered multiple underwater plumes of oil that stretch for miles that will affect deep-sea life such as Sperm whales and ultimately the life on the floor of the oceans in the Gulf’s sanctuary. 

The New York Times said one plume is 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick.

The University of South Florida reported another plume being 22 miles long, 6 miles wide and 1,000 feet deep.

Not surprisingly, in the wake of the multitude of research from a variety of qualified scientists, BP CEO Tony Hayward has been quoted as saying that there is “no evidence,” that the oil is below the surface.

But the depth of the oil is not the only thing that may threaten these protected areas.

Coral spawning in the Flower Gardens occurs in late summer. The event usually occurs each year for 7 to 10 days after the full moon during the month of August.

It is the same month that officials “hope” to cap the spill.

Another critical reason for this to be stopped is born.

NOAA was recently quoted in Science Daily stating that the timing of spawning is critical and that the oil spill could severely damage this natural process.

The administration said, “Corals that are spawning at the time of an oil spill can be damaged because the eggs and sperm, which are released into the water at very precise times, remain at shallow water depths for various times before they settle. Thus, in addition to compromising water quality, oil pollution can disrupt the long-term viability and reproductive success of corals, rendering them more vulnerable to other types of disturbances.”

The possibility of this occurring is about nine weeks away. Approximately 60 days.

It’s apparent that there have already been many visible effects of this event. However, not knowing when exactly it will end and slowly finding more and more that have and will be harmed in this event and its aftermath, unfolds everyday.

However, if we continue to participate in offshore drilling in any form, it may be only time before this happens again. Greenpeace believes that the only way to prevent an event like this and its consequences is to ban any and all new drilling.

Perhaps setting a deadline to stop the oil from pouring into the Gulf will help get the job done. The consequences of BP and all others involved not meeting it will affect life above and below the sea forever.

But maybe deadlines are just what are needed. No one will get a cash bonus this time for meeting a target date, but it’s clear that there is much more at stake.

 

 

Posted on behalf of Bessie Rose, GOT Spring 10 Alum:

 

 

I've just returned from the most life changing experience I've had yet in my 19 years on this beautiful Earth.  The experience I speak of is the Greenpeace Organizing Term. This semester, also called the GOT, provides students that have a passion for environmental activism, organizing, or are just curious about environmental issues in general an outlet to turn their concern into action. 

When I signed up for the GOT, I’ll admit, I wasn’t entirely sure what I was getting myself into. Once I had completed the interview, and then been accepted, I realized my vision – to act on something I cared deeply about – would become a reality.

The semester was filled with action (quite literally) on all ends. 

Some major highlights for me were the campaign simulation, the trainings, and the expedition trip. The campaign simulation gave each student two days to prepare, plan and implement a hypothetical environmental campaign on their campus or in their community using the tools we had gained while on the GOT.

It was hard but rewarding work, and after completion of the simulation, my confidence in my ability to run an environmental campaign increased ten-fold. 

Our expedition trip to Canada to bear witness to the tar sands was perhaps the most eye-opening experience for me while on the GOT. Before leaving for the trip we spent weeks studying the tar sands. 

We learned just how detrimental the tar sands are both to the land which contains large amounts of Canada’s wetlands and vast amounts of biodiversity, and also for the people including indigenous populations whose rights have been endlessly violated by oil companies. 

Once we got to Canada, we went on an exclusive tour through the tar sands. Along with the DC GOT class and Greenpeace Canada, we successfully planned and carried out an action in front of the BP headquarters in Calgary. 

Our action coincided with BP’s annual general meeting in London and other protests going on as part of the “BP Fortnight of Shame” to re-brand BP as an environmentally destructive company and demand that they divest from tar sands development.

The Calgary BP action was tons of fun to plan and carry out, but also required lots of hard-work, organization, and focus since it was almost entirely up to the GOT to plan and organize the event. Luckily, Greenpeace Canada was kind enough to give us space and materials to work, and also helped coordinate media to arrive at the event. 

It’s hard to encompass exactly what the Greenpeace Organizing Term did for me in a few paragraphs. I want to say that if you decide to join the GOT, I promise you won’t be disappointed. 

The GOT has and taught me how to align my beliefs with action that matters. For me, that’s the core of hope. And that, in itself, is a marvelous victory.

-Bessie Rose, Greenpeace Organizing Term Spring 2010 Alum

Even as BP's wellhead continues to spew its toxic brew, defacing miles of pristine coastline, Congress is apparently powerless to conjure a legislative fix for the threats to America's coasts. We need to learn a deep and profound lesson about what exactly our national priorities are.

Greenpeace has been bearing witness to the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill for the past month. Click here to read more blogs, view videos and more images.

The most recent “comprehensive climate legislation,” the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act, is not the robust legislative protection for America’s coastlines that we so clearly need. Giveaways to the fossil fuels industries, nuclear subsidies, and junk emissions reduction targets are not the way to move forward.

While we still have no clear estimate of the total impact from the BP Oil Spill on the Gulf’s fragile ecology, fisheries, or tourism, we continue to wait for guidance from our elected officials. And though the picture may be bleak, at least one Senator has seen an opportunity to pivot from this disaster and help to end our disastrous dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

While the legislation does not call for a complete ban on drilling all of America’s coasts, we stand behind S.3433, the Clean Coasts and Efficient Cars Act of 2010, introduced by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Congress should act to protect all of America’s coasts, including Alaska and the entire Gulf of Mexico. This legislation begins moving us toward that goal by protecting the coasts of the Atlantic, Pacific, Central Gulf, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico from a catastrophe like the BP Deepwater Disaster, which has already spilled millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf. Significantly, the bill recognizes an important step we can take to reduce demand for oil — raising fuel economy standards for gasoline powered vehicles.

Although we use 25% of all oil produced, the United States’ oil reserves represent only 3% of the global total. The result is that we already import about two-thirds of the oil we use. Because we simply do not have enough oil, offshore drilling cannot increase energy security - but more drilling can and will destroy ecosystems and coastal economies. A strategy to increase energy security for this generation and the future will only succeed if the focus is on developing renewable energy, increasing efficiency and reducing oil demand in our transportation sector. By increasing fuel economy, this legislation will reduce our demand for dirty oil, whether it is obtained from foreign countries or risky offshore drilling.

Sanders’ bill would set a fuel economy standard of 55 miles per gallon, up from an average of 35 mpg that American carmakers must achieve by 2030 under current law.

In Europe, by contrast, cars already get the equivalent of 42 mpg and by 2020 cars in Europe will be required to get at least 65 mpg. Why, in a rich and industrious country like America, can’t we also have the benefits (both environmental and price-wise) of such comprehensive legislation?

The time to act on climate change is now. We will let you know how you can support Sen. Sanders’ bill in the weeks to come. In the meantime, write to Congress and tell them to put a stop to dangerous and expensive offshore drilling off all our coasts.

By David Helvarg

Less than six months ago environmentalists were celebrating President Obama’s commitment to our public seas as they went to work in support of a proposed National Ocean Policy.  Of course that was before the President endorsed offshore oil drilling, nukes and “clean coal,” as a path to carbon-free energy.  That’s like proposing a healthy diet based on junk food, amphetamines and low-tar cigarettes.  You just can’t get there from here.

The President’s call for expanded fossil-fuel development on the nation’s outer continental shelf waters at the end of March came less than a month before the catastrophic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oilrig in the Gulf.  That disaster, as we all now know, left 11 oil workers dead and 17 injured.  Then the rig burned for two days before sinking in almost mile deep water, setting off the worst and ongoing environmental disaster in U.S. history (and most compelling video since the jets hit the twin towers).

 

 

I’ve been on some of BP’s deepwater platforms in the Gulf and have written that this is where the next offshore disaster would likely take place.  The history of the industry’s claimed  “safer drilling technologies” has always come about – to the degree it has at all – in the wake of rapid exploration and extraction in new frontier waters, be they the drilling piers off Summerland California at the end of the 19th century (“the township is aslime with oil,” reported the San Jose Mercury News at the time) or mile deep Gulf waters today. 

These lessons keep getting learned in blood and oil in large measure because there was never any real government oversight from the Department of Interior’s Mineral Management Service that issues the offshore permits Created by Ronald Reagan’s notoriously anti-environmental Secretary of Interior James Watt in 1983, MMS has been - according to a two-year old Inspector General’s report on sex, drugs and paintball parties - the only government agency literally in bed with the industry it was supposed to regulate.  I once asked the chief of the environmental division of MMS why the agency has never cancelled an oil lease sale based on its own oil-spill risk assessments.  His response:  “It’s hard to make or break something as big as a lease on one issue.”

Right now, along with deep-ocean drilling in the Gulf another newer ‘frontier’ area is the Arctic Ocean that is becoming more accessible as a result of fossil-fuel fired climate change resulting in loss of sea ice.  Several Greenpeacers were recently arrested for writing a warning against drilling the Arctic Ocean on the side of a ship chartered by Shell Oil for exploratory drilling this summer.  Their chosen medium of expression - oil spilled from the BP hydrocarbon eruption.  Obviously, the wrong people were arrested.

Just retired Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen, who has stayed on as the federal official in charge of the BP oil disaster response in the Gulf recently told me that the United States’ emerging 5th blue water coast in the Arctic lacks the Search and Rescue (SAR) assets, oil spill response capability, security and other resources including basic aids to navigation necessary for industrial and commercial activity to safely take place there.  Nonetheless the push to drill the Arctic continues even as the Gulf of Mexico is dying before us and 40 percent of America’s coastal wetlands are threatened with an oily apocalypse.  A reporter recently asked me if burning the wetlands or the waters was a better solution.  Is amputation better than gangrene?  Marginally perhaps, but the term ‘better’ doesn’t even apply at this point.

The better thing is to begin making a national and global commitment to a rapid transition from the extraction and burning of coal and oil, the cutting edge carbon technologies of the 16th and 19th centuries, to clean renewable energy for the 21st century and beyond.  After all no ecosystem, coastal culture or economy was every destroyed by a wind spill or a turning of the tide. 

David Helvarg is President of the Blue Frontier Campaign (www.bluefront.org), a marine conservation group that works with Greenpeace.  His book, ‘The U.S. Coast Guard – America’s Forgotten Heroes’ has just come out in paperback.  His new book is ‘Saved by the Sea – A Love Story with Fish.’  (both with St. Martin’s Press).

Next Tuesday June 8th marks a pivotal point in the trial of Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, two activists on trial for exposing an embezzlement scandal in the Japanese whaling program. Junichi and Toru, known as the Tokyo Two (T2), will give their closing arguments in what will be their final day in court before the judges retire to consider their verdict. It will be over two years since the two were arrested and subject to the drawn out judicial process, which has seen all three judges change – two of which were rotated only recently - and what appear to be ongoing cover-ups by the authorities.  The trial has become one which is not just about corruption within the whaling industry, but also human rights and freedom of expression in Japan, with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention weighing in to say that the authorities’ treatment of the T2 has violated their human rights.  

Find the full UNWGAD opinion here

A recent CNN TV story describes the issue of whaling as a conflict between activists and the whalers. The T2 case shows a different battle happening within the country, one where those in authority deny their citizens the right to investigate, the right to informed discourse, rights that Japan is obligated to uphold based on their international agreements.  And soon, whaling also faces a pivotal moment with an upcoming International Whaling Commission meeting the Japanese delegation brings the same duplicity to the proceedings that the Tokyo government brings to the trial.

Artist sketch L-R: Junichi Sato, Defense Council Member, and Toru Suzuki. Greenpeace/Molly Intersimone

While the true nature of the whaling industry has been highlighted by the ongoing T2 case  the future of whaling will also come under scrutiny at the next IWC meeting.  Greenpeace wants a fair trial for its activists, and positive change at the IWC that will see the commission modernized into a body for the conservation and protection of whales, not whaling. Japan has an opportunity at the IWC and in the T2 case to prove that it is the first world democracy and environmental leader it wants to be.

Over 400,000 people around the world have signed on to support Junichi and Toru, and with next week’s closing arguments we will see if the court has been paying attention.  Please sign the petition for the T2 and tell the IWC delegation to save the whales.

 

 

Our campaign to achieve zero deforestation in the Paradise Forests continues to gain momentum.  After moving Nestle to cut deforestation out of its supply chain in just eight weeks, we are pleased to see movement on the political front as well.  This morning, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced a two-year moratorium on new forest and peatland destruction.  The commitment came in advance of the governments of Indonesia and Norway signing a $1 billion deal in Oslo to develop capacity to implement strategies to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

This is the first major international support for a REDD deal since the disappointing UN climate talks in Copenhagen last December.  And its big news for the climate since Indonesia is the world's third largest greenhouse gas polluter after the U.S. and China because of the destruction of its rainforests and peatlands.  Expectations are now rising for President Obama to build on the announcement made by Indonesia and Norway.

How does REDD work?  While the details of REDD policies can be confusing, the basic idea is simple: industrialized nations pay developing nations to keep tropical forests standing in order to protect our climate and the diversity of life that benefits us all.

If the money is sufficient and used in the right way, it can drive systemic changes, help overcome corruption, and aid in the development of long-term solutions.  If the money is not well spent, or if inadequate safeguards for things like local communities, Indigenous peoples and wildlife are not in place, REDD schemes can subsidize business as usual and be little more than greenwash.

The announcement by the Indonesian President is good news, and we should be cautiously optimistic that this could be the start of new cooperation between governments to tackle rainforest destruction and climate pollution.  But, it is only a first step, and there are uncertainties and missing pieces left to deal with.

For example, the moratorium announcement does not deal with the vast areas already under concessions to companies like Sinar Mas and APRIL – it only applies to new concessions not yet granted.  That means we still need to pressure consumer companies and retailers to reject products linked to rainforests and peatland destruction.

Also, it is unclear when the moratorium actually takes effect.  If it starts in 2011, as stated in some press, it could spark a rush by forest-destroying companies to grab as many concessions as they can now.  This would be a terrible consequence from an announcement that is supposed to be good for forests.  If they are serious about slowing deforestation, the governments of Norway and Indonesia should make sure the moratorium is effective immediately.

In addition, we must remember that the Paradise Forests include important rainforests outside of Indonesia in places like Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and other nations not yet party to a deal like the one unveiled in Oslo today.

Another question is: will Obama step up to help Indonesia reach zero deforestation as quickly as possible?  If a small Scandinavian country of less than 5 million people can pledge $1 billion to save some of the world’s most important forests, what will the United States do?

That question will soon be answered.  President Obama is returning to Indonesia, a country he lived in for four years as a child, in mid-June.  Millions of acres of pristine rainforest have been slashed, burned, logged and destroyed since he was a boy.  Now that he is President, Obama has a unique opportunity to protect Indonesia’s remaining rainforests and peatlands.  Take action now encourage him to build on, and improve the first steps established by the Norwegian/Indonesian announcement.

For the forests,

-Rolf

The news today out of Washington has been somewhat promising, but these are small steps in a very long march towards a clean energy economy — an economy with none of the potential for massive ecological destruction such as we've seen in the Gulf.

Greenpeace has been bearing witness to the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill for the past month. Click here to read more blogs, view videos and more images.

Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Elizabeth Birnbaum submitted her resignation letter this morning. Also today the Obama Administration renewed a moratorium in the pristine Beaufort and Chukchi seas in Alaska for the next 6 months, canceled the pending lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Virginia, and suspended action on 33 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Greenpeace welcomes any and all investigations of the root causes of the BP Deepwater Disaster. Furthermore, Greenpeace welcomes the President’s call to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. These are all positive steps.

But preventing another massive ecological disaster can only be guaranteed by a complete and permanent legislative ban on all new drilling off of America’s coasts.

To put today's news into perspective: The Washington Post is reporting that BP's oil spill in the Gulf is officially the largest in American history, and the company’s latest round of bungling attempts at stopping this massive flow have not been successful. Enough is enough.

In order to move forward from this tragedy in a meaningful way, Congress must:

• Ban all new offshore drilling so that no more of America's coastlines are threatened with ecological catastrophes such as the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill;
• Place stricter regulations on extractive industries (coal and oil) to make them safer and more accountable for the damage they cause;
• And pass legislation that jumpstarts the clean energy revolution.

Also, Arctic Alaska must be taken off the table permanently. Harsh weather and ice-infested waters are the norm in the region, and the risk of blowouts is even higher than in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spill “clean-up” in the remote environment, where the nearest Coast Guard station is a thousand miles away, is even more impossible than it is in the relatively more hospitable and accessible Gulf. As a result of today’s announcements, Arctic Alaska is out of harm's way for a mere 6 months. Shell’s Arctic drilling threatens distinctive species such as polar bears, walrus, seals and whales, as well as the Alaskan Native communities who have relied on them for culture and subsistence for millennia. Alaska’s Arctic and its inhabitants deserve better.

We can not afford another catastrophe on the scale of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy — especially in Alaska where oil spill response infrastructure is virtually non-existent. We're learning in the Gulf that there is no such thing as cleaning up an oil spill.

Half measures, loopholes, and giveaways to polluters won't cut it this time. Now is the moment for action.

Because of today’s announcements concerning the suspension of pending leases in Alaska, we have happily closed our online petition calling on Interior Secretary Salazar to ban Arctic drilling. But your members of Congress still need to hear from you. Sign our petition to Congress telling them that now is the time for a permanent ban on ALL new offshore drilling.

The vast majority of the world's internationally traded seafood moves by sea. Many unfortunate fish find themselves ripped out of the ocean only to be gutted, frozen, shoveled into containers, and sent plowing across the top of it in a massive cargo vessel. The companies that transport seafood from port to port play an indescribably important role in the seafood industry's chain of custody.; After all, if you can’t get a fish onto the land, it becomes a lot tougher to put it in the oven.

It is in this respect that the imperiled Chilean sea bass — or more appropriately, the Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish — have recently gained an enormous ally.

Maersk is the world’s largest shipping company. In addition to jet engine parts, hybrid cars, stretch pants, and countless other items, the Maersk shipping fleet transports approximately 20% of the world’s entire ocean-going seafood supply. It’s a staggering amount of frozen fish, and that’s why it’s so heartening to hear that the company is now refusing to ship any Antarctic or Patagonian toothfish due to environmental concerns.

How great is that?

David Pawlan, Maersk’s Line Head of Global Seafood, makes no equivocation about the reasons behind this progressive policy shift. “We recognize the global concerns over the overfishing of toothfish species,” says Pawlan, “and support efforts to curb this trade.”

Pawlan is right to be cautious in this regard. It has beyond debate that much of the toothfish industry is inextricably linked to a massive illegal fishing enterprise operating in an unregulated manner in the Southern Ocean. The tremendous market value of Chilean sea bass fillets has prompted the fishing industry’s equivalent of a Klondike gold rush in the Southern Ocean: a desperate, greed-fueled free-for-all in a frigid and lawless wilderness.

Maersk is a welcome addition to a small but growing movement to protect the toothfish. Greenpeace has been pressuring companies throughout the seafood chain of custody to stand up for this animal and its vulnerable habitat for years, but it hasn’t been until relatively recently that major players in the seafood industry have started to get on board.  In the United States, the world’s largest market for toothfish, some large retailers are beginning to take a progressive stance on this critical issue.  Ahold USA refuses to sell any toothfish products and actively disseminates information about the animal to its customers.  Wegmans, a smaller high-end grocery chain, has pledged not to sell any seafood from the Ross Sea — ground zero for Antarctic toothfish fishing – whatsoever.  Several other major US retailers have also discontinued their toothfish sales in the past year or two.

So the toothfish tide may be turning — but that’s not the end of Maersk’s commitment. The shipping company has also pledged that it will not carry any shark products, any whale meat or whale blubber, or any orange roughy, a fish notorious for its exemplification of unsustainability.

This is earth-shattering. We finally have a shipping company that is beginning to stand up for the very thing that keeps it relevant and in business: the ocean. Still, there are still some missing pieces, including a very important one: the last few members of the world’s most endangered commercial fish species still ride atop the waves in freezer containers stacked high on the deck of Maersk, Hanjin, and other shipping vessels — not to mention in the guts of trans-Pacific jumbo jets — and this animal has very little time left indeed.

We must stop trading in bluefin tuna. If not, we will lose it forever.

On Tuesday, Greenpeace held a protest at computer giant Dell's Round Rock, Texas headquarters over the company's backtracking on its public commitment to eliminate key toxic chemicals in its products by 2009. Our decision to directly communicate with the company's leadership and employees was not taken lightly — it was reached after it became clear that Dell is not moving quickly enough to honor its public to phase out the use of toxics by 2011.

Our message, delivered on Dell’s campus with an enormous banner suspended from the roof, was addressed to CEO Michael Dell and read: “Michael, What the Dell? Delete Toxics Now.” The protest follows similar demonstrations against Dell at its offices in Bangalore, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen. Greenpeace is pressuring Dell around the world to let the company and the public know that while Dell's competitors are phasing out the use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), Dell is falling behind and is contributing to the mounting e-waste problem that is poisoning communities in places like China and in West African nations.

PVC and BFRs are highly toxic and can release dioxin, a known carcinogen, when burned. With the growing tsunami of electronic waste being shipped to developing countries for open burning, workers who deal with e-waste are at the most significant risk for health impacts. Eliminating these substances will decrease exposure to workers and consumers and will increase the recyclability and reusability of electronic products.

The amount of electronic products discarded globally has skyrocketed recently, with 20-50 million tons generated every year. If such a huge figure is hard to imagine, think of it like this: If the estimated amount of e-waste generated every year would be put into containers on a train, it would go all the way around the world. E-waste now makes up five percent of all municipal solid waste worldwide, nearly the same amount as all plastic packaging, but much more hazardous. And it's not only developed countries that generate e-waste: Asia discards an estimated 12 million tons each year.

E-waste is now the fastest growing component of the municipal solid waste stream, due largely to people upgrading their mobile phones, computers, televisions, audio equipment and printers more frequently than ever before. In Europe, e-waste is increasing at three to five percent a year, almost three times faster than the total waste stream. Developing countries are also expected to triple their e-waste production over the next five years.

Greenpeace and Consumer Electronics

For the past five years, Greenpeace has been campaigning for electronics companies to reduce toxic chemicals usage and improve take-back and responsible recycling programs. This involves regular meetings with many of these companies to exchange information and discuss company progress and relevant industry developments.

Our primary tool for tracking the progress of consumer electronics companies is the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics, which is updated quarterly. In the latest version of the Guide, both Apple and HP moved up, their scores fueled by having new computer lines free of PVC and BFRs, demonstrating the technical feasibility and supply chain readiness of producing alternatives to these hazardous substances. Dell stands in 10th place, having been penalized in the previous ranking for its backtracking on PVC/BFR phase out.

There is still time for Dell to do the right thing and honor its commitment to phase out toxic PVC and BFRs. As an electronics industry leader, Dell’s move would be seen as a true game changer. People concerned with Dell’s toxics backtracking can take action.

From the Gulf Coast to the West Coast to the East Coast, Greenpeace activists are out in full force to send the Obama Administration a message: Ban Arctic Drilling!

As the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill has made plain for all to see, we desperately need to move away from dirty, dangerous fossil fuels like oil and toward clean, green renewable energy. Unfortunately, even as the Gulf continues to fill up with filthy crude oil, the Obama Administration is intent on going ahead with more offshore drilling, a move that will prolong our addiction to oil rather than end it.

In fact, despite the moratorium the administration said it had placed on all new offshore drilling permits, we have now learned that the Interior Dept.’s Minerals Management Service has actually approved several new offshore drilling permits since April 20th, when BP’s rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded and sank, leading to several million gallons (and counting) of oil being spilled. Worse yet, most of these new permits were given the same environmental exemptions as BP was given for the Deepwater Horizon.

And of course, the administration is so far allowing Shell to move ahead with its plans to drill in the far more ecologically sensitive Arctic region this summer. As you might have seen already, several of our activists sent a loud and clear message to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar earlier this week when he was down in Louisiana by painting “Arctic Next?” on a Shell support ship soon to be headed for the Arctic.

But we didn’t stop there. Salazar was called before the Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives today, and our activists were there with a similar message: “Salazar: Ban Arctic Drilling.” Like the painting on the Shell ship, the signs these activists were holding were painted with some of the dirty crude that has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for the past month.

Here’s an awesome photo of Sec. Salazar and Deputy Interior Sec. David Hayes turning around to read our activists’ signs:


We had a message for Salazar’s boss, too. President Obama was out here in the Bay Area today campaigning on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, and several of us went down there to send the exact same message to the Pres. Here’s a pic of Obama’s motorcade whizzing by our banner:


So, Obama and Salazar have gotten our message, we know that much. But that doesn’t mean our work is done. We need as many folks as possible to be hammering this message home. Help stop the next oil spill: write to Sec. Salazar right now and tell him to stop Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic.

Two days ago, the gavel came down in an adjudication decision which may, more than any other recent hammer-strike, determine the future of fishing: The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) officially bestowed its blue-and-white fish-check label to a massive factory operator that targets Antarctic krill.

This is not a good thing.

Antarctic krill are tiny shrimp-like crustaceans that cluster in vast multitudes (known as “blooms”) in the waters of the Southern Ocean.  They form a critical building block in the oceanic food web: small fish consume the krill before being eaten themselves by seals, penguins, toothfish, and other animals.  Krill are also a primary source of nourishment for migratory whales -- in fact, the majority of the world’s baleen whales journey to the southern ocean to feed on krill and replenish their energy supplies after depleting their reserves during their mating and calving seasons.

While krill in their vast numbers do seem on the surface to be an “inexhaustible resource,” one would hope that, by this time, we have learned that this mindless assumption will never be accurate in regard to any of the inhabitants of our finite planet.  There is no such thing as an inexhaustible resource.  Ask any great auk or passenger pigeon, they’ll tell you.

Oh, wait -- you can’t ask them.

Because there aren’t any left.

Because there’s no such thing as an inexhaustible resource.

There are a few things that we are certain of about krill.  The first is that the tiny animal, like many other sea creatures -- especially crustaceans -- is vulnerable to climate change, especially through the ocean acidification trends resulting from the rising levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.  Nowhere in the Marine Stewardship Council certification system are the potential effects of climate change even discussed, let alone taken into account by the methodology.  Strike one.

Next, we know that Antarctic krill exist in the Southern Ocean – an area adjacent to a land mass that is uninhabited by humans.  The simple fact that we are sending fishing vessels into this area bespeaks an unsustainable paradigm, known as finite expansion.  There is a certain amount of ocean on this planet.  That we continue to fish farther, deeper, and longer simply underscores the fact that we are not approaching the management of our oceanic resources from a sensible and comprehensive standpoint that would account for the idea that one day – one day quite soon, actually – these fishing boats are going to bump up against the ice shelf.  No more expansion.  What then?  The Marine Stewardship Council methodology again fails to even consider these perspectives, concentrating instead on discrete management techniques that do not consider the idea that sustainability is more than a fishery-by-fishery label – it is a way of looking at the world.  Strike two.

Finally, we know that we have only a very rudimentary understanding these tiny animals.  Krill have been studied only cursorily and we have almost no knowledge of their life history and behavior.  It is irresponsible in the extreme to proceed with the certification of a fishery that is so cloaked in mystery – we have no idea what kind of damage we could be doing.  Strike three.

And yet in the face of all these worries, the rubber stamp comes down and the MSC pronounces the krill fishery to be sustainable.  Let’s not forget that vehement objections to this certification have already been lodged by the Pew Environment Group and the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition.  These objections were overruled -- but let us not forget that the three strikes listed above were not taken into account in the decision, as they are simply not part of the MSC methodology... and if something isn't part of the system, it apparently doesn't have any relevance on reality.  Or so the adjudication decision would lead one to believe.

There is a conceptual concern here too.  The certification of this fishery gives an unofficial nod to the basic idea that vacuuming up the tiny life forms forming the foundations of the oceanic ecosystem is an acceptable practice.  In reality, it’s not.  Even the United States fishery management authorities banned fishing for krill in US waters, specifically to allow it to remain in the ocean as a food source for other organisms.  Legitimizing and expanding Antarctic krill fishing is simply transferring our unceasing resource demand to a hitherto unrecognized protein source.  This is not the way to move forward – in fact, pulling too hard on this loose yarn just might unravel the whole tapestry.

The certification of krill makes no sense.  It’s a minuscule building-block animal on the other side of the world that simply doesn’t belong to us.  We can’t even eat it – the krill will just be used to make oil, fish food, and other rendered products.  And for this, we may end up short-changing whales, toothfish, seals, and other animals – all because the powers that be refuse to look at the entire issue from a larger perspective.  Fishing for krill will not feed the world -- but it just might end up starving it.

Greenpeace activists, scientists and photographers have been working for weeks in the Gulf, witnessing first hand the destruction of the BP oil spill. On Monday, seven Greenpeace activists took action to prevent the next oil spill. Using oil from the Gulf spill, they painted the message “Arctic Next?” on the bridge of a supply ship that Shell has contracted for their proposed work in the Arctic.

The message was directed at Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who, only miles away inspecting the Gulf at the time, has the power to cancel Shell’s Arctic program.

Shell hopes to begin drilling off of Alaska’s North Slope this summer. It could be a bigger disaster than what we’re seeing in the Gulf with BP. There is simply no effective way to respond to a spill in the Arctic.

The activists were joined by each of you who helped carry this message to Secretary Salazar. So far over 27,600 emails have been sent and over 2,900 calls have been made to the Secretary!
 
Salazar is expected to make his decision this week on whether to allow Shell to begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean. This is a crucial opportunity to protect the Arctic. We all need to join these activists and work together to make sure Salazar keeps hearing our message!  If you haven’t sent your message, please do so now.  If you have already called, call again and get your friends to call as well. 

The seven activists were arrested in the Gulf face heavy-handed charges.  As Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford puts it, these charges are a “a disproportionate response to the peaceful protest that took place while not a single BP executive has been charged for the devastation they have wrought on the Gulf of Mexico.”

All this left me wondering what comes next so I asked my friend and Gulf activist, David. Here’s what he had to say:

“Well, I am truly inspired that thousands of Americans took action with me to prevent drilling in the Arctic Ocean. If we all keep this kind of pressure on Salazar, he’ll cancel Shell’s program and prevent what happened in the Gulf from happening in the Arctic.”

I couldn’t agree more.

With the memory of BP’s failed "fail safe" shut-off valve fresh in our minds, one can only begin to imagine the nightmare that millions of pounds of chlorine gas could bring to the Delaware valley thanks to DuPont. The inspection report we gave to DuPont on May 21st was the culmination of weeks of work. For example, we photographed 90-ton rail cars parked outside their fence line. Just one of these rail cars can put millions of people at risk of sudden death or serious injury 20 miles down wind. From our airship we saw many rail cars of chlorine gas inside their plants.

As former DuPont CEO Charles Holliday told the media in 2007, there’s little anyone can do to prevent a plane from flying into one of their plants. But what DuPont can do is switch to safer processes. Even Dow Chemical is doing that at one of their plants. They partnered with K2Pure Solutions and will eliminate the storage and transport of 90-ton rail cars of chlorine gas by switching to a small batch process. Clorox is also doing the same company-wide. And the railroads, which bring the chlorine to DuPont, no longer want to haul these cargoes. The Association of American Railroads says if these plants won’t convert, Congress should make them.


Inside the Edge Moor, DE DuPont plant we met DuPont spokesman Rick Straitman. He didn’t dispute the inherent danger of their chlorine gas and assured us that they were looking for safer alternatives. But he wouldn’t comment on why DuPont is lobbying Congress to kill legislation that would prevent chemical disasters.

Together 300 U.S. chemical plants put 110 million Americans at risk. Yet 40 million Americans no longer face these risks thanks to the conversion of 500 plants to safer chemical processes. But at the current rate of conversions it will take over 40 years for the highest risk plants to convert. The Senate needs to adopt legislation (H.R. 2868) passed by the House last year. They need to make sure that the highest risk plants use safer alternatives where ever possible. Let your Senator know today.

And the Winner is........the creative spirit inspired by the love of whales.

Greenpeace invited activists to submit creative photos to show President Obama that people are serious about saving the whales, and people of all ages, from all over the world have responded.  Greenpeace has offered prizes for the top three images chosen by Phil Kline, Greenpeace Senior Oceans Campaigner, Diana Silbergeld, Greenpeace National Activist Network Director and myself.

The images they are sending to http://www.greenpeace.org/photocontest are posted on http://www.flickr.com/photos/save_the_whales. We will be delivering the images, along with petitions and signatures to the White House on June 3.  Some are charming in their simplicity and others are breathtakingly complex. All are individual expressions of love and respect for these amazing fellow mammals that remain at risk of violent destruction more than two decades after the International Whaling Commission voted to stop commercial whaling. Now the IWC is considering a proposal to resume commercial whaling and the United States is supporting that proposal.

Greenpeace and other groups are in an all out effort to let President Obama know that this must not happen. The pictures show that people care, and express that in so many ways. There are images of whales, leaping humpbacks, breaching tails, Grays, pilot whales, orcas, fin whales and dolphins. They are in the ocean, in the middle of the air and in outer space. There are horses, birds, dogs and people. People graduating, leaning on cars, holding signs, young people, elderly folks, kids and a great diversity in between. There are words, signs, banners, symbols and expressions. Waves, sunsets and lighthouses.

Seen together and great multilingual visual story of why we love whales and don't want them slaughtered anymore. Contest entries close at midnight Wednesday, May 26, 2010. Stay tuned for the announcement of the winners as we stay focused on the U.S. position and the outcome at the IWC meeting June 20 in Agadir, Morocco.

The sticky, hot oil was so deep that my boots sank three inches and nearly came off when I took my next step.

Where the beach looked clean, I let my eyes follow baby crabs a foot more on shore where I saw the wall of debris and grass saturated four inches deep with thick, reddish-brown oil.

Last Thursday marked one month since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, killing 11 people and setting in motion an unfolding, unprecedented disaster in the U.S.

[BP]resident Obama?

What was so unsettling in the Gulf was that when I was down there I couldn't tell where President Obama began and BP ended. Greenpeace boats full of reporters were physically blocked by the coastguard and forbidden to take pictures of the oil on the beach. When asked why, the coast guard staff replied: "It's not our policy. It's BP's policy." The President's response to the spill, until yesterday when Lisa Jackson demanded that the toxic dispersants be replaced (kudos to her for this), has seemed like a page out of BP's playbook of focusing on image damage control as much as oil spill damage control. He has not batted an eye in defending further off-shore oil drilling and has withheld from the public the scale of the problem.

I was heartened to hear that the President called for truck mile per gallon standards be upgraded and that fuel economy standards should be strengthened in the long-run for regular cars. The big question is if the President will virtually phase out the use of oil in cars by 2030 or continue down Ken Salazar's misguided drill baby drill policy.

The Coast Guard's "Nightmare Scenario"

As leviathans of underwater oil move their way up the East Coast, President Obama is opening the door to what the Coast Guard called its "nightmare scenario" - drilling in the Arctic.

Shell Oil plans to begin exploratory drilling in Alaska's Arctic Ocean this July. According to the Coast Guard, the pristine Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are extremely remote, freezing cold, covered in darkness for much of the year, and the water is incredibly choppy, making a spill a "nightmare." The rig being shipped right now to the Arctic is older than the BP Deepwater rig that exploded. Regardless, President Obama and Secretary of Interior Salazar continue to push the interests of big oil companies.

This moment will require that the President do more than say that he is frustrated with BP and (rightly) pointing the finger. President Obama should ban all offshore oil drilling and call for an end to the use of oil in our cars by 2030.

Stopping Shell's drilling plan would be a good, first indicator that the President is moving away from the Salazar-BP oil policy. Getting America's cars and trucks off of oil by 2030 would prove that the President is finally actually leading.

Today Greenpeace activists took a stand on the ship the Harvey Explorer to send a message to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The activists used oil from the spill to paint the message "Arctic Next?" on the bridge of the ship, which is scheduled to depart for Alaska to support drilling operations in July.

No matter how you frame oil: in a fancy television commercial or newspaper ad featuring different shades of green, a popular song, or a logo of the sun, it will still always be oil. This is the truth no matter how well crafted a marketing spin really is. It isn’t exactly easy to put on green-tinted glasses and see oil in a different way. However, it’s what BP has been trying to do for years.

Ironically however, even oil companies have picked up on society’s drive for the words “eco-friendly,” and the dirtiest of companies are attempting to benefit from it. In the greenwashing game, profit often comes before any reputation of honesty or respect for the true meaning of “green.” Today, BP plays the game with a lot of guts.

For some time, Greenpeace has been covering BP’s greenwashing schemes. However, now that they are responsible for what could become the largest oil spill in U.S. history, we felt that recapping on their long history of environmental ploys is vital. Perhaps not all of BP’s deception has been as serious as their gross underestimate of how much oil is truly pouring from their rig. However, their smaller duplicities, the ones that haven’t left as physical or destructive of footprints, have simply served as a foundation for the much larger ones.

Lets reminisce.

The goal to be painted green: The truth behind the marketing

Last year, Greenpeace awarded the BP the first “Emerald Paintbrush” award for greenwashing. Greenpeace in the UK attempted to present the company with a trophy: a paintbrush covered in green paint.

But BP wasn’t exactly cordial when accepting. See this video of Greenpeace UK attempting to deliver the award.

 

The award was granted to the company in recognition of its 2008 multimillion dollar marketing campaign, boldly stating a pledge to alternative energy. But the clever catchphrases, such as “from the earth to the sun and everything in between” and “the best way out of the energy fix is an energy mix,” which define their ‘green’ advertising, are hardly more than statements created from a well-paid public relations flack.

Greenpeace UK calculated information from company documents and found that the company’s investments do not match their public relations statements. BP invested 93 percent of investments into oil and gas in comparison to 2.79 percent on biofuel and 1.39 percent on solar initiatives. The ratio speaks for itself. It demonstrates (in actual numbers), the misleading nature of BP’s marketing claims of dedication toward alternative energy.

 

 

But the desire to be branded as ‘green’ has been a decade long goal for BP. In 2000, the company launched its $200 million advertising campaign to highlight a more environmental side. Their popular idiom “Beyond Petroleum” was also developed at this time.

In 2001, BP received a “Campaign of the Year Award” from PRWeek in the category of “product brand development” for that campaign, according to Source Watch.

This photo and the one above were recently taken by Greenpeace photographers at the scene of the oil spill along the Louisiana coast. Here, that same ‘Beyond Petroleum’ catchphrase simply stands as an ironic and perverse indication that oil is the true focus of this company.

 

But should there be any surprise?

Since the branding began in 2000, the company has been absolving itself of any accountability to its marketing.

For example, in 2009 BP further affirmed that it was never truly committed to alternative energy when that division of the company in London was shut down.  Vivienne Cox, the director of solar and wind power for the company resigned at the same time. Shortly before the entire division was cut, BP’s solar projects in both Spain and the United States were ended, cutting hundreds of jobs.

The same time last year BBC reported that BP had decided to shift its priorities from being "green" to being "responsible," backing away from their environmentally friendly commitment.  

"The new brand value, 'Responsible', encompasses BP's original aspirations towards the environment, in addition to other key areas such as safety and social welfare," said spokesman for the company, David Nicholas, in a April 2009 BBC story. "Our aspirations remain absolutely unchanged: no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment."

A history of harm past deceptive advertising

No accidents? No harm to people, or damage to the environment? Considering the current situation, it might be an incredible underestimate to say that they haven’t exactly met their “aspirations”. While society watches as BP oil floats in a thick layer on the top of the Gulf waters destroying natural habitats and ecosystems as well as hurting the seafood industry, fisherman and locals along the coast, the quote is a biting incongruity.

However, it should be well known that the most recent oil spill is not the first time that BP has not kept its aspirations to be safe or responsible. It’s not just misleading advertising and marketing strategies related to alternative energy that define the company’s historical relationship to the environment. In fact, there have been a number of more detrimental actions than just deceptive branding.

In 2005, an explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City injured 170 people, killing 15. The company faced approximately $87 million in fines for safety hazards at the refinery including settling with the families of the victims of the explosion for $1.6 billion. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or OSHA, BP was charged with “willful”safety violations, meaning a company was aware of the hazards and violations.

A year after Texas City, in 2006, BP became responsible for the largest spill on the North Slope in Alaska. A corroded pipeline in Prudhoe Bay dumped 200,000 gallons of oil over the course of 5 days. It was estimated to have covered two acres. Months later, the pipeline leaked 1,000 gallons again.

And in 2007, OSHA also fined BP again for safety violations at their Toledo, Ohio refinery. The violations were synched with the cause of the 2005 refinery explosion.

The Center for Public Integrity also recently found that in total, BP was responsible for 97 percent of all violations found in the past three years.

Considering these instances, there is no wonder or surprise in the fact that safety is being considered as a factor in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. A recent investigation by Representative Henry Waxman found that the rig’s “blowout preventer” had a leak in the hydraulic system and that it had failed a pressure test hours before the explosion. This finding was exacerbated when a whistleblower in the industry said that BP was aware of safety issues related to the Atlantis, another deepwater rig in the Gulf.

Despite the significant amount of evidence proving that they had a history of safety violations, serious irony occurred on the same day of the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Also on April 20, BP flew officials onto the rig to celebrate its safety record. The circumstances almost seem too strange to be real: something that would happen in a comedic cartoon of the event.

 While it’s not exactly a secret that many companies have piggy backed on the swelling wave of interest in the term ‘green,’ it’s slightly ironic that BP, with this kind of history would have the fortitude to ever consider themselves a truly environmentally friendly company.

Group vice president for marketing for BP, Anna Catalano, once told the New York Times that BP is "the company that goes beyond what you expect from an oil company -- frank, open, honest and unapologetic."

Given the information above and the current oil spill, it’s hard to agree that the first three of the above adjectives accurately describe this company. Its clear that one of these applies.

Jo Billups is a friend and supporter of Greenpeace who lives in the Gulf region.

I was born in New Orleans and grew up on the Bayou. I spent my childhood looking at alligators and being on the river. I used to go fishing on these waters, and my dad had a camp at South Pass.

The Gulf is such a big part of my life. That’s why the oil spill has been so hard.

I feel betrayed. BP should never have been allowed to put our communities and our ecosystem at risk like this. Eleven people are no longer with us because of offshore drilling. All our fishermen, shrimpers and oystersmen are out of work. Our culture is in ruins.  

The fishing community

Most people in the fishing community live paycheck to paycheck. They’ve been working on their boats all year and investing everything they have into them. Now, as soon as fishing and oyster season opens, they can’t fish. The spill has stopped the fishing industry. The fish are starting to wash up dead.    

Our community is centered around the beach life and the Gulf. So many people make their living off it and they’ve done it for generations. The fishermen are fishermen because their fathers and grandfathers were fishermen. It’s the same for the shrimpers and the oystermen. Who knows if they’ll ever be able to return to life as they knew it on the Gulf. An entire way of life has been devastated.  

The impacts

Over this last month I’ve gone from walking the beaches for pleasure to walking the beaches in search of dead animals and animals in need. There is a split reality here. You’ve got people lying on the beach in bathing suits, and 60 feet away there are dead sea turtles and people in hazmat suits. You’ve got people who know it’s dangerous and won’t get near the water, and you’ve got people coming down for vacation.  

There’s a lot of denial. BP just paid the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce $500,000 for a campaign that says “Come on down, the water’s fine.” But the reality is there’s a lot of fear and anxiety. The tourist industry is beginning to suffer. Memorial Day is coming up and a lot of the hotels are not booked.    

I don’t think I’ll ever swim in the Gulf of Mexico again, or eat fish from the Gulf. Some people are still at the beaches and the seafood is still being served at the restaurants, but I haven’t seen any tests being done. They’re going to need to do a lot of testing to ensure that fish is safe to eat.

Everybody will tell you that it smells like kerosene. People are coughing and complaining of headaches, dizziness, and nausea. The air is toxic, and we’re being told that we’re not smelling anything.

From the minute the leak began BP said it wasn’t leaking. From the very first day BP has been lying about this. We need to constantly combat the misinformation. BP has people cleaning the beaches of dead animals, like it didn’t happen. Our beaches have never been cleaner. They won’t give us the information. They won’t give us a true animal count. They’re doing such a huge campaign to make it seem like it’s not as bad as it is.

Hurricane season

But this is happening. The Bayou Region is being destroyed, and now we are approaching hurricane season. People aren’t even talking about this yet, and it could be bigger than anything we’ve seen. It won’t take a big hurricane to push this oil inland. It won’t take much to push this up to drinking water sources, up the Mississippi.

Everyone down here is just coming back from Katrina, and a hurricane would be devastating. If we get a 30 foot tidal wave of oil there’s no way to tell the damage it will do. We saw the damage water alone that was done after Katrina, and now we’re adding oil and dispersants to the mix. No one knows how bad that could be because it has never happened. We’re truly in unchartered waters.    
 
The government can prevent this

I hope people realize that fossil fuels are dirty, nasty and dangerous to people and ecosystems.  

To be dependent on fossil fuels is like being in the dinosaur age. We have to more forward. We have got to harness the sun, the water, and the wind. We need to embrace clean energies. I do not trust energies that put people and ecosystems at risk. Alternative fuels are the only answer.  
 
I hope people learn to question and not become complacent about dirty energy operating in their backyards. Those rigs have been there all my life. When something is there that long you get lulled into a false sense of security. Every single rig has the potential to cause this kind of damage. I hope that people learn to speak out and not allow this to happen in their community. It can ruin everything.  

I’ve been teaching others about recycling, biodiversity, and conservation for 20 years, but that doesn’t touch what’s happened here. This goes beyond the lesson I was teaching. You can teach those concepts, but if you’ve got BP in your backyard it doesn’t matter how much you recycle or conserve.

Our government can stop this. I’d like to know the plan so that this never happens to another community like it did to mine. I’d like to hear the government’s plan to spare any other communities from having to deal with a disaster like this one.  

- Jo Billups

It’s been a month since the BP oil disaster in the Gulf and over 6 million gallons of oil has already spilled and is showing no sign of letting up. A WHOLE MONTH has gone by and the situation only seems to be getting worse! And yet BP is rebranding themselves as “beyond petroleum” claiming that it sums up their brand as a company that is moving towards a “lower carbon future”?

On BP’s website they claim that they are a company that is “exploring, developing and producing more fossil fuel resources to meet growing demand”. But how exactly can you develop and produce more fossil fuels when it’s not a renewable resource and is made from the organic remnants of prehistoric life. BP claims they are trying to “meet the challenges of our time in a sustainable way”, but our resources are being depleted fast and once they’re gone, they’re gone…

So I guess when BP says they are “exploring, developing and producing more fossil fuel”, they actually mean they are about to make a decision on whether to invest billions of dollars into the Canadian tar sands - the dirtiest oil currently being produced. The tar sands of Canada are roughly the size of Belgium and are currently the biggest industrial development and opencast mining operation on the face of the Earth. They are natural deposits of heavy oil mixed with clay and sand that lay beneath the wilderness of Canada for which the only access is clearcutting the Boreal Forest. To produce one barrel of oil, two tons of land must be unearthed and when the pits are producing 1.82 million barrels a day, habitats are destroyed and many species are being driven to the brink of extinction. Sounds sustainable, right?

If they are supposedly trying to use more sustainable approaches, is there any rational reason as to why they would choose to invest in the tar sands which produce about three times the emissions per barrel of oil than you would get from normal crude? The projections of oil in the tar sands will create enough carbon emmissions by the end of the century to raise the global temperature by six degrees. As I said before; sounds sustainable, right?

Greenpeace agrees. This morning our climbers scaled the corporate headquarters of BP in London to give them their own rebranding makeover that better suits their dirty business. BP, now aptly known as “British Polluters” for their investment in the dirtiest oil on the planet, needs something else than a nice shiny green flower as their brand identity.

Take action today and tell Congress that it’s time that we end our addiction to fossil fuels. It’s time to invest more in sustainable energy unless we are prepared for more loss of life, more ecological catastrophe, and more economic ruin.

 

 

So what if the waiter spit in your soup? The amount of spit is tiny compared to the amount of soup in your bowl.

So what if there’s arsenic in the water? The amount of arsenic is tiny compared to the amount of water in the municipal supply.

So what? Well, I for one wouldn’t want to eat that soup or drink that water, despite assurances that the good stuff is in more abundance than the bad stuff. Would you?

Incredibly, this is basically the argument being advanced by BP CEO Tony Hayward, who recently told the UK Guardian of the BP Deepwater Disaster oil spill in an attempt to play down the impact of the oil spill on Gulf ecosystems: “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

Some 5 million gallons of oil have spilled so far — and that’s based on conservative estimates of the rate at which oil is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. And BP has reportedly used an “estimated 400,000 gallons” of dispersant — itself a highly toxic and dangerous substance — to try and cover its tracks.

Several attempts by BP to stem the flow of the oil have failed, so Hayward is touting the use of dispersants as a major success by BP because it has kept the oil from washing ashore in “large amounts.” Of course, as we’ve been reporting, this is only a good thing for BP, because images of the oil washing up on beaches and coating wildlife such as sea birds who are currently nesting in the delicate ecosystems of the Gulf’s shoreline would compound the damage to the company’s already beleaguered public image.

In reality, the dispersant and the oil are both toxic and are both poisoning fish, which the seabirds need to eat. Funny thing about an ecosystem is that everything is interconnected, and you can’t do harm to one part without effecting the rest. But that, apparently, is no concern of Tony Hayward’s.

The truth is, Gulf Coast communities and ecosystems will be dealing with the effects of this oil spill for generations to come. The real extent of the damage won’t be known for some time, but it’s sure to be disastrous. Livelihoods are already being lost, dolphins and other marine mammals are already turning up dead on beaches — and it’s only just begun.

Try as he might, there is no way for Tony Hayward to minimize the impact of his company’s negligence in this case. And it’s only a matter of time before the next oil spill — which could be even more disastrous if it occurred in a place that is far more fragile and hard to reach, such as the Arctic. It’s time Congress took serious action to end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels and usher in a new era of clean, green renewable energy.

During the Summer of 2007 I was fortunate enough to travel on Greenpeace’s wonderful vessel, the Esperanza. As we left Homer Alaska to begin our two-month journey into the Bering Sea, my home, we made a quick stop at Port Graham in Kachamak Bay in the southern Cook Inlet. This was a blessing for me in many ways, mostly because it was one of my Parishes in my other life for eight years! Port Graham was also one of the many Alaskan Native Villages severely impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. Here is some of what I learned during this visit.

May 15, 2010 - Dr. Erica Miller, a member of the Louisiana State Wildlife Response Team, cleanses a pelican of oil at the Clean Gulf Associates Mobile Wildlife Rehabilitation Station on Ft. Jackson in Plaquemines Parish, La. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Justin Stumberg/Released) Read more latest news about the BP Deepwater Disaster, view more pics, and take action to prevent the next oil spill

We arrived in Port Graham and immediately visited one of the Tribal Council’s most respected elders, Eleanor. She had so many stories to tell that if we had stayed for a whole day we would not have heard them all, so she chose a few important to what we were doing. One of the statements she made regarding the impacts of the oil spill was, “It never ends….never goes away.” And to this day I am deep in thought over those words. What did she mean? Why did she say that?

She said that her grandchildren, born right around that time in 1989-90, were lost children. Lost because they would not know what it means to go hunting, fishing or berry-picking and gather food, their traditional food, and share it with the village. They did not know, nor would they ever experience, the joy of giving a five-gallon bucket of clams to the elders in the village, the shear goodness of carrying on this long-standing and sacred tradition. They would not know the blessings of capturing a harbor seal for food — not killing the animal but rather receiving it from the animal itself as a gift to them. They would not know the experience of bringing the animal to the beach and ceremoniously thanking the animal, and returning unused parts of the animal back to the sea. They would not know that respecting the seal and all foods in this way and returning parts of it back to the sea was a respectful thank you. They would not know the certainty that the animal will return once again to offer itself as a gift to the village as food. They only would hear stories of how it was done once and what it means.

Eleanor continued to speak in a way that only a suffering grandma can speak: in slow, quiet, well-chosen words peppered with patience and longing.

She continued: "My grandchildren will not know the joy of being hungry and exhausted following one of these food gathering journeys so familiar to those of us blessed to have been born at a different time. When one gathers food in such a manner, creating an unmistakable tie to centuries of ancestors, doing what they did in a manner considered the only way to do it, it opens thoughts and feelings in the mind and heart one can only experience by doing these activities. They will not know this. And the exhaustion, the hunger can only be granted by following these traditions, feelings granted by our ancestors because of our efforts. This is not suffering. This is real connection to life, to holy things. They will not know this."

“It never ends,” she concluded. “These generations of young people cannot experience these gifts because they have grown older and these things can only be done at a certain age, at certain places, at certain times and certain seasons.”

The forlorn sounds and expressions in her voice and deeply in her eyes said it all. They are lost. This is a part of what the oil giant Exxon spewed upon an ancient people. Not only was the environmental disaster totally destructive to the ocean and its flora and fauna, but to generations of lost people, as well. People who can only dream about what could have been. People who could not experience this important transitional time of their lives. Surely the ocean and lands, mother nature may some day recover so future generations can return to their sacred traditions. But can they really? There may not be anyone around who knows these things to teach them — or worse, they just would not know what they could have learned.

And now Shell plans to begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean, even as the oil continues to pour into the Gulf of Mexico.

It never ends.

Greenpeace UK oceans campaigner Willie Mackenzie tells us what's wrong with the way most tuna are caught.

Greenpeace is not against purse-seining. That may surprise some people. Sure it’s a big industrial-looking fishing operation, involving huge nets and catching lots of fish. But that’s not always a bad thing.

If we are to assume we’re still going to catch and eat fish, then purse-seining as a method is probably going to be something that continues. Purse-seining involves setting a large circular ‘wall’ of net around fish, then ‘pursing’ the bottom together to capture them. Where purse-seining is best used is with large single-species schools of fish, that shoal tightly together. Examples like herring or mackerel spring to mind. These can be caught relatively ‘cleanly’ by purse-seining.

But where purse-seining is a bad idea is when targeting fish that a) also involves the bycatch of non-target species, and b) simply can’t take the fishing pressure on their populations.

And that’s where we get to tuna. At both ends of the tuna size and value scale, purse-seining is employed.

For skipjack, the smallest species, and staple of tinned tuna, purse-seining is used throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The problem here is that skipjack tuna often shoal together with young bigeye or yellowfin tuna. These often end up in the nets too. As do sharks, rays, turtles, and other species of fish. Then when you add in the complicating factor of Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) – the use of which increase the amount of bycatch – then the problem gets even worse.

The solution here is firstly to stop using FADs, thereby immediately reducing the amount of other species ‘accidentally’ caught. Then to employ measures to further reduce, and wherever possible free, unwanted species caught up in nets. Given the endangered species of oceanic turtles, sharks, and bigeye tuna, this is not wishful thinking. Cleaning up skipjack purse-seine fishing must happen, and happen soon.

Then at the other end of the scale, massive bluefin tuna are also caught by purse-seines, in places like the Mediterranean. This is by no means a ‘traditional’ fishing method, and in fact the increase in purse seining over the past few decades has been at the expense of local, and traditional methods of fishing that have existed much longer.

What happens today is that the bluefin, aggregating to spawn, are targeted by vast purse-seine nets. Then those that are too young to sell on are towed off to be kept and fattened up in cages.

The Atlantic bluefin population simply can’t take fishing at this level. It is this fishing method, and the associated ranching, all in turn driven by a new-found appetite for bluefin sushi around the world (and especially Japan) that have caused Atlantic bluefin numbers to plummet.

They are now an endangered species, and purse-seining rhinos or tigers would be equally reprehensible.

And the losers in this set-up, aside from the bluefin themselves, or the bycatch in skipjack nets, are the traditional fishing communities who have been catching these fish with minimal impact for centuries.

-- Willie

Take Action and sign our petition for a global network of marine reserves.

Since oil started gushing into the Gulf of Mexico nearly a month ago, BP has been doing everything it can — to protect its profits, image, and reputation. Even as their oil is destroying the Gulf of Mexico’s unique ecosystems and the marine animals and local economies that depend on them, BP has launched a public relations campaign to try and minimize the fallout of this disaster to their bottom line.  But no matter its efforts to rebrand itself or downplay the significance of this disaster, BP, can't hide from this.

BP is certainly trying though. The company withheld video evidence that revealed that much more oil was pumping into the Gulf than the official estimates – perhaps 10 times as much or even more.  And it's executives have been trying to deflect the blame onto someone else at congressional hearings.

They’ve been injecting thousands of gallons of toxic dispersants to keep the oil from reaching the surface, even though no one knows what the effects of this massive experiment will be on fish and other organisms. Independent scientists and Louisiana fisherman understand why — it’s not about cleaning up the oil, it’s about hiding it from public view on the surface, even though spreading it throughout the Gulf could just be exacerbating the damage. Indeed, independent scientists have found that the use of dispersants may be causing the oil to form massive underwater plumes, which could harm sperm whales, bluefin tuna, and other creatures that live in the open ocean.

But don’t bother BP's CEO Tony Hayward with that news, who recently said: “Everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest."

That's not what we're seeing.

We’re pretty skeptical of claims by the oil industry and the government officials who still seem to be doing more to protect polluters than to hold them accountable for the devastation they are causing. That’s why Greenpeace’s team on the Gulf Coast has been bearing witness to the disaster and conducting an independent assessment of the impacts. On board the Greenpeace boat “Billy Greene,” we’ve sought to bring oil spill experts and media to see what is really happening to the Gulf and the Mississippi Delta, no matter what the latest spin from BP.

This is the cost of our reliance on dirty and dangerous energy.

It's time to announce "another big forest victory!" This one I take great pleasure in sending out myself. At first blush it might not appear as sexy as our unfolding Indonesian forest story or as awe-inspiring as our ongoing Amazon soy and cattle story, but I believe that someday we will look back at the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement and deem it the most important of all.

Canada! Where Greenpeace started. Canada! Where the Greenpeace Forest Campaign started. Canada! Home to the world’s largest timber industry! Canada! Now home to the biggest eco-regional land use planning process in history!

Read more, check out a slideshow, video, and find links to full documentation about the Boreal Agreement

Why? Because people like you have been helping us campaign on the issue for years. This is why we ran the Kimberly-Clark campaign in the first place!

On the table will be 277,992 sq miles of boreal forest – that’s like one Texas plus one New Hampshire put together! Of that, 111,969 square miles of prime habitat will be immediately placed in 100% moratoria – that’s like one Nevada and one Rhode Island put together. No logging, no road building, no nothing.

To be clear, today’s agreement is an agreement to START a three-year negotiation process. For the next three years Greenpeace and a bunch of other environmental groups will be negotiating with a consortium of 21 logging companies. Seats will soon be filled by First Nation representatives, too. A 100-something page framework for talks has already been agreed with 60 something measurable milestones that must be met along the way – all monitored by an independent 3rd party.


Download map as PDF

For you older folks or students of history, think of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement as the giant, oversized child of the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement which is today considered the global hallmark of conservation agreements. The Great Bear multi-stakeholder, eco-regional land use planning process was a first-of-its-kind, unprecedented achievement with huge conservation gains, as all logging is mandated to meet or exceed FSC standards. This new Boreal Agreement, if the 3-year negotiation process succeeds, will be the same thing … only much, much bigger.

Will it be a 3-year hair-pulling, teeth-grinding fight? Hell yeah! Friendships will be gained and strained. Some may turn to the bottle. But mark my words, we’re gonna win it. We’re not negotiating from scratch. A lot of important “givens” are already built into the process.

Thanks to everyone who ever did anything to help any Boreal forest campaign! Now the real work begins. Wish us luck.

Finally... some good news! Nestle, the world's biggest food and drinks company, announced that it will cease using products that drive the tropical rainforest destruction.

This is great news for our environment in what has otherwise been a bleak few weeks. President Obama continues to dig in (or drill in) and stand firm behind his plans to increase offshore oil drilling despite the BP Deepwater oil disaster and continues to work to lift the ban on commercial whaling.

In the midst of it all, Nestle's recent act is a refreshing act of leadership.

Here is why this matters: 17 percent of global-warming pollution comes from deforestation. Brazil and Indonesia are among the four most polluting countries (with China and the U.S.) because cutting trees releases carbon pollution.

To address the main driver of deforestation in Brazil -- cattle ranching -- Greenpeace worked with Nike, Wal-Mart, Timberland, and other companies to pressure their suppliers to stop grazing cattle on recently deforested land.

In Indonesia, palm oil and pulp plantations are both driving deforestation and pushing orangutans to the brink of extinction. After being caught red-handed, Nestle has committed to identify and exclude companies from its supply chain that own or manage "high-risk plantations or farms linked to deforestation." This exclusion would apply to companies such as Sinar Mas, Indonesia's most notorious palm-oil and pulp-and-paper supplier, if it fails to meet the criteria set out in the policy. It also has implications for palm oil traders, such as Cargill, which continue to buy from Sinar Mas.

Read more at Grist.com >>

 

Reports are trickling in about an increasing number of dolphins and sea turtles washing up dead on the Gulf of Mexico coast. We are starting to see oil-covered seabirds, bringing back memories of the terrible photos from the Exxon Valdez spill. There were even rumors this week, as yet unconfirmed, of several dead sperm whales.

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. No one seems to know for sure how much oil has been spilled, but the estimates keep increasing. Some scientists are now saying that the equivalent of two Valdez spills per week is gushing into the Gulf right now. So far, most of the oil has remained below the surface, offshore, and out of sight – and so have the impacts to marine life.

Part of the problem with assessing what the spill is doing to Gulf species has been a lack of transparency by those doing the assessing. BP has hired contractors to test dead animals, but what we’ve seen from them so far has been a bit dubious. When contractors tell the media that the number of dead dolphins is no cause for alarm, or that there is no link to the spill, it doesn’t exactly instill confidence.

NOAA is the federal agency we would expect to lead this, and it is good to see that they are taking a larger role now. Unfortunately, before even preliminary analysis has been shared about whether use of toxic chemical dispersants is compounding the threat to marine life, the Environmental Protection Agency has just approved their use at depth. No one knows the impact this will have on the Gulf ecosystem, but it will keep more of those impacts out of sight – and at least for now, that is enough for BP and the Obama Administration.

But not for us.

What’s sweeter than a candy bar?  The new pledge by food giant Nestle to cut forest destruction out of its products and out of its supply chain.  In just weeks, a global Greenpeace campaign has transformed Nestle from a company driving rainforest destruction through its use of palm oil, to one pioneering an ambitious new policy to ensure its products have a zero deforestation footprint.

With its new policy, Nestle commits to identify and exclude companies from its supply chain that own or manage “high risk plantations or farms linked to deforestation.”  This would apply to the notorious Sinar Mas group, a palm oil and paper conglomerate that Greenpeace has repeatedly caught destroying Paradise rainforests.  It also has implications for Cargill, a Nestle palm oil supplier which purchases from Sinar Mas.  In short, companies can either stop destroying rainforests, or they will stop having Nestle’s business.

While this victory came swiftly, there was a lot of work leading up to it.  For years, Greenpeace has worked to achieve major breakthroughs with some of the world’s largest users of palm oil including Unilever, Kraft and other giant consumer product companies.  Despite this, Nestle – the largest food and drink company in the world – was dragging its feet.  To motivate them, Greenpeace launched a global campaign on March 17th targeting the company and exposing its links to Paradise Forest destruction.

Within a few hours of the campaign launch and publishing of our Caught Red-Handed expose, Nestle agreed to cancel its direct business contracts with Sinar Mas.

But, that was a relatively small move for Nestle – most of the palm oil they purchase comes from third-party traders.  We had to keep the pressure on the company.  Thanks to supporters and activists like you around the world, we did just that.

The support online has been overwhelming.  The edgy “Have a Break” campaign video removal from YouTube sparked an online uproar and video reposting to Vimeo, driving 100,000 online views within the first 24 hours.  Within weeks, the video had been viewed more than 1.5 million times!

Facebook was another key online arena for the campaign, where a steady stream of pressure was applied to Nestle via comments you posted on its Facebook page.  The response was so overwhelming, it incapacitated Nestle’s page, spiraling into an online PR disaster for the company.  The Wall Street Journal, among other international media, was prompted to declare that “Nestle Takes a Beating on Social-Media Sites.”

The power of social media combined dramatically with our direct actions to deliver the message directly to Nestlé at events like its annual shareholder meeting on April 15th.  Outside the meeting venue, investors and executives were greeted by protesting orangutans as they arrived.  Inside, our activists hid in conference center's cavernous rafters, then dropped down on banners over executives heads telling Nestle to stop destroying rainforests.  You can read more about those dramatic actions in one of my previous blog entries.

Despite its new commitments, Nestle has plenty of work to do to implement its policy.  You can rest assured Greenpeace will be watching closely to make sure it does.

Greenpeace will also be making it clear that other large companies and retailers must take steps to clean up their palm oil and pulp and paper supply chains.  The Nestle policy does not mean the problem is fixed.  Rather, it is a model and starting point for other companies to build on.

Governments need to get involved as well to make sure actions by companies are not short-circuited, and to ensure long-term protections for the Paradise Forests.  President Obama is going to Indonesia in June and is expected to address forest issues while there.  Tell him to encourage Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to protect peatlands and create a moratorium on forest destruction immediately.  Click here to take action!

Also, spread the good news about this huge victory to friends on Facebook, Twitter and MySpace!

For the forests,

-Rolf

After spending decades as a commercial fisherman in the North Pacific, I fully understand the economic hardships facing Gulf fishermen. I’ve faced seasons that were either delayed or closed for various reasons myself. The economic disruption and resulting stress for my family was miniscule compared to what Gulf fishermen are facing. But at the time it seemed like our world was crashing down around us.

May 5, 2010 - Fishermen wait to talk to a representative of BP to registe their boats and work with the cleanup effort in the Gulf of Mexico. It's the only work they can get now that most local fisheries are closed. © Tim Aubry/Greenpeace Find more images of the BP Deepwater Disaster, read the latest news, and take action to stop the next oil spill

As the old saying goes: “Timing is everything.” It goes without saying that there’s never a good time for an oil spill. However, for fishing fleets in the Gulf of Mexico, the timing of this spill couldn’t have been worse. During the winter, while not fishing and living off the previous season’s earnings, the family coffers drain to empty. The stress at home goes up as the bank account goes down.

Winter slowly fades to spring, and optimism about the upcoming season begins to build as captains and crews get ready to start doing what they do best – fish for their living. Knowing there’s just a matter of days from the first paycheck of the season, some bills sit on the counter unpaid: “Oh well, we’ll pay the late fees.” You have to be ready for the opening – get out the credit cards, make a deal with the fuel dock to pay later, borrow from friends, family, the bank – whoever – to buy the groceries, fuel, ice, and needed equipment. The boat is ready and the bank account empty but not to worry, fishing season is literally hours away! Watch the weather forecast. Recheck everything. It’s almost time… It will all work out, it always has…

And then BAM! Oil everywhere, poisoning the fish, poisoning the birds, washing up on shore, destroying the ecosystem you have built your living on your whole life.

The impact of this oil spill is not going be a short-term event, and then back to business as usual. There’s a real possibility that the very ecosystem that supports Gulf fisheries will be damaged for years to come.

For BP to offer a quick $5,000 one-time payment to the fishermen and their families who have quite literally lost their livelihood is outrageous. Fishing families need money to pay their bills immediately and support payments need to continue for as long as it takes the Gulf to recover.

Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, the Tokyo Two (T2) are two Greenpeace activists on trial in Japan for exposing a whale meat embezzlement scandal within Japan’s Southern Ocean Whaling Program. Yesterday, two crewmembers of the Nisshin Maru whaling and processing ship took the stand.  These two men were central figures in the embezzlement investigation completed by the T2 and Greenpeace, and they had to answer questions on record about the whale meat embezzlement. 

Greenpeace/Molly Intersimone. Artist sketch of witness in Aomori District courtroom. May 14th, 2010

Through the investigation by Greenpeace and the T2, and subsequent evidence in court, it has been shown that the whaling industry is a corrupt government-subsidized annual whale hunt disguised as scientific research.  By the end of the day yesterday, one crewmember confirmed much of the T2’s investigative work in 2008.  He described the involvement of the Fisheries Agency of Japan and the Japan Whaling Association as recipients of whale meat gifts.  Previously in court, a former crewmember identified government officials not only as recipients of “gifts” but actually accused employees of the government’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) of taking the best cuts of whale meat off-the-record and for personal gain. The ICR is the body of the Fisheries Agency that accompanies whalers so they can claim to be doing "lethal scientific whaling."

The other crewmember who testified could not keep his story straight, explain why he had brought materials commonly used in preserving whale bacon on board, or say what was in the boxes he sent home.  At one point, he even claimed that he was shipping home Arctic Ice and unwanted whale cuts before the defense reminded him that all of his boxes were shipped at room temperature.  The Public Prosecutor's Office has chosen to silence citizens calling attention to embezzlement instead of investigating the real scandal.  Embezzlement in a tax-payer funded enterprise where beneficiaries of illegally procured whale meat go all the way up to the Fisheries Agency of Japan.  As more and more evidence comes out, it is apparent that this is a political trial meant to protect those in Japan receiving unmarked boxes of valuable whale bacon.  

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Junichi and Toru had been arbitrarily detained and their freedom of expression violated.   See UNWGAD summary. 

On the other hand, Junichi and Toru have used the trial to show with utmost transparency their investigation and to show how they consistently operated within their rights to Freedom of Expression:

“Through the course of this trial we have consistently proven that we acted in the public interest, which is protected under international law,” said Toru Suzuki, Greenpeace Japan. “The United Nations Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was clear in its opinion(1) that neither Junichi or I should have been detained and this prosecution is political. We trust that the court will take this into account, and acquit us.”

 -Toru Suzuki

The next trial date is June 8th, where closing arguments will be heard and the prosecution will request a sentence for two citizens they should be applauding for their courage not silencing to save face.  

Sign the petition for the T2

Read the  International Press Release and Past Blog Trial Coverage

Whaling 101

Keep up to date the about Tokyo Two and the whaling issue by joining the T2 facebook page.  

As BP’s oil continues to spew unabated into the Gulf of Mexico, Shell continues to push forward with plans for exploratory drilling off Alaska’s Arctic coast. If Shell gets its way, it will begin exploratory drilling in July in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, home to polar bears, walrus, whales, seals and other distinctive Arctic species, as well as communities who have relied on these animals and the environment for their culture and subsistence for millenia.

Shell is scrambling to show that its plans are nothing like BP's. Shell’s 2010 Exploration Plan for the Chukchi Sea states, "a large oil spill, such as a crude oil release from a blowout, is extremely rare and not considered a reasonably foreseeable impact.” Shell dismisses the risk of a blowout, just like BP’s 2009 Exploration Plan downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident with the Deepwater Horizon, suggesting that it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur. Yet 11 workers were killed and oil has been gushing from the well for more than three weeks, with no end in sight.

BP’s Deepwater Horizon drill rig was built in 2001 and heralded as state-of-the-art, ushering in a new era of exploratory drilling. In comparison, Shell plans to use a drill ship built in 1966, when Lyndon Johnson was president. Clearly, the risk of a blowout during exploratory drilling are very real, despite what BP and Shell say.

The BP Deepwater Horizon spill is in a temperate part of the country with substantial oil spill response infrastructure nearby. Yet BP’s spill response has been hampered by weather — choppy seas, wind, etc — and “cleanup” in open water has been limited to burning patches of oil or spraying toxic dispersants which merely break the oil into smaller pieces where it can still do damage to the marine ecosystem, not to mention the toxic impacts of dispersants on marine life.

To be blunt, the Deepwater Horizon demonstrates that it’s difficult to respond to an oil spill of this magnitude in the Gulf of Mexico, and “cleaning it up,” actually removing the oil from the environment, is impossible. On a good day, only 10-15 percent of spilled oil is actually removed from the environment. Estimates for BP’s spill in the Gulf are a fraction of that.

Now take the scenario of BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and superimpose it where Shell wants to drill in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. These seas are in the Arctic, where “summer” means temperatures hovering in the 40s, gale-force winds, week-long storms and heavy fog that restricts visibility. Sea ice is also a factor, in fact, Shell’s fleet of seven ships for Chukchi and Beaufort exploratory drilling includes an icebreaker. Some of the wells in the Chukchi Sea are up to 140 miles from shore. Most importantly, oil spill response capacity in this remote part of the world is a tiny fraction of what exists in the Gulf of Mexico, and oil spill “clean up” in Arctic waters is impossible.

The last time the oil industry conducted an oil spill response test in Alaska was back in 2000, off Prudhoe Bay in the Beaufort Sea. I observed the mock test from one of industry’s barges and a smaller response boat. Sea ice prevented the smaller boats from even leaving the dock, the test was a failure, and Alaksa state regulators acknowledged that. However, that was the last time the state required an oil company to test its equipment in a mock, open-water oil spill on the North Slope of Alaska where Shell plans to conduct exploratory drilling this summer.

Shell and the rest of the oil industry will say that oil spill response and “clean up” technologies have advanced since then, that they can deal with an oil spill in the Arctic, but don’t believe it. They rely on field tests where relatively small amounts of oil are released in controlled environments and then extrapolate from there. Moreover, none of their studies are peer-reviewed. The US Coast Guard calls an oil spill in the Arctic its “nightmare scenario,” and with good reason. As difficult as it is to respond to an oil spill in the temperate waters of the Gulf of Mexico, responding to an oil spill is fraught with problems in the Arctic, and “clean up”  is impossible.

BP’s Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill have already taken the lives of eleven people and caused as-of-yet uncalculated damage to the people, economy and environment of the Gulf. We can only hope that the horrible loss and damage from BP’s disaster is the turning point for US energy policy so that Alaska’s pristine Chukchi and Beaufort seas are protected from Shell’s drilling and spilling.

The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill has finally been released, and it appears that all the delays gave polluter lobbyists ample time to really do their dirty work on the bill. It's now what you might call more of a "dirty energy bailout" bill than anything else. Greenpeace cannot support the bill unless several key weaknesses are changed, as outlined in this press statement.

Why is it a dirty energy bailout? It incentivizes offshore drilling — at a time when a disastrous oil spill is still pumping over 200,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every day. It would subsidize coal at a time when most folks are asking how we can limit the damage coal is doing to our communities and the environment in the aftermath of the terrible explosion at a mine in West Virginia. Earthtrack has a good breakdown of the subsidies for dirty energy industries.

Never has the time been more ripe for making the case to America that we need to transition off of the dirty fossil fuels of the past and toward the clean, renewable energy sources of the future. Instead, Kerry and Lieberman’s American Power Act will actually prolong our dependence on destructive, dirty fossil fuels.

The bill does nothing to address our addiction to oil, but would endanger more of our coastlines with catastrophic oil spills like the BP Deepwater Disaster — all for a miniscule amount of oil, as you can see in the graphic to the right. Clearly the cure for our oil addiction is not more offshore drilling, but to aggressively move into renewable energy.

 Perhaps the biggest boon to the dirty energy industries, however, is the weak emissions targets called for in the bill. Dirty energy purveyors are desperate to evade regulation of their carbon emissions so that they can keep pumping millions of tons of global warming pollution into our atmosphere free of charge. And with the emissions reductions called for in this bill – roughly 4% below 1990 levels by 2025 — they will essentially get to do just that.

To add insult to injury, this bill literally guts the EPA’s authority to regulate dangerous greenhouse gases at a time when global concentrations are rapidly becoming critical. Also, even if the states decided to set tough emissions standards, the bill would preempt them from setting tougher emissions standards than the federal government. This “climate bill” guts key provisions of the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s authority to enforce proven legislation that is designed to protect Americans from some of the most dangerous pollutants.

It’s time to get serious about national energy policy. A truly visionary energy and climate bill would spend $54B on electric cars, smart grid technology, and public transportation instead of nuclear madness. It would level the playing field to allow clean energy technologies to compete in the marketplace on an equal footing with fossil fuels, not throw money at mythical technologies like carbon capture and sequestration.  

A clean energy policy truly deserving of the name would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide substantial incentives for transforming our economy with clean, renewable energy technologies and in the process generate new green jobs on a national scale. This is how leaders respond. Now is the time for Congress to act with a comprehensive, science-based plan to take America into the 21st Century and provide real international leadership.  

Even with opposition from Americans for Prosperity, Glenn Beck, American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and all the other climate deniers, the American people still know that we need to find solutions to global warming. All we need is leadership and to clear the dirty energy lobbyists out of town. You can take action right now to call on Congress to provide that leadership and pass a bill that doesn’t hand out giveaways to the fossil fuels industries.

It’s now been over three weeks since BP’s oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded, burned and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. These have been hectic weeks for all concerned, no doubt, but the paucity of information available to the public is, at best, discouraging.

How much oil is flowing / has flowed into the Gulf of Mexico? 

The figure we keep hearing is 5,000 barrels or 210,000 gallons per day. After 23 days, that adds up to 4,830,000 gallons. A week into the spill, there was speculation that the rate of flow might actually be 25,000 barrels (or 1,050,000 gallons) per day. If that’s true, then 24,150,000 gallons of oil are now in the gulf, a spill more than twice as large as the Exxon Valdez. Recent news reports stress that no one knows how much oil is flowing, but everyone seems to accept the 5,000 barrels per day figure. We know from past experience that oil companies tend to minimize the amount of oil spilled and, unlike a tanker spill, there is no finite amount of oil that can be spilled in the worst case scenario.

Why are we just now seeing images of the leak?

Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) have been working at the site of the spill since the first days after the rig sank. They transmit photos and video to their operators at the surface. Of course, the ROV operators have their hands full, but surely these images must have been passed along to the Coast Guard and other federal agencies that are – we’re told – in charge at the scene. Surely we understand why BP might be slow to release these images, but one would hope the federal government would have more respect for the public’s right to know what’s happening in a publicly owned resource.

Why is the federal government continuing to exempt offshore oil rigs from environmental standards?

Read all the latest news about the oil spill, view pics, and take action to stop the next one.

Thanks to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), we learned late last week that the Minerals Management Service has granted categorical exclusions to 27 offshore rigs since the Deepwater Horizon exploded. “Categorical exclusions” mean that the projects do not have to pass the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Categorical exclusions were built into the law for projects that clearly have limited environmental impact, like hiking trails, not oil rigs capable of wiping out entire ecosystems.

And by the way, what would have happened had CBD not blown the whistle?

Speaking of other rigs, what’s up with the other 3,000-plus rigs in the Gulf?

At Wednesday’s hearing in the House Energy Committee’s subcommittee on oversight, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) revealed the “fail-safe” blowout preventer had: 1) a dead battery in its control pod; 2) a leak in its hydraulic line; 3) a “useless” test version of a key component; and 4) a cutting shear that wasn’t strong enough. We have no reason to think other oil companies are more devoted to environmental protection than BP, so why should we not expect this to happen again and again and again? How do we know it won’t? Why should we think the federal government is providing adequate oversight?

Why did BP not have emergency plans ready in advance?

BP has already tried – and failed – to put a containment dome on the biggest leak. We all sat around for days while BP fabricated the dome on shore. If such domes – ineffective as it proved to be – are the best response for such leaks, why are they not pre-made and standing by on every rig? Now we sit and wait as BP fabricates a “top hat” plug. (Memo to BP: why don’t you start work on Plans D and E now instead of waiting for your latest contraption to fail?) Perhaps Plan D is the famous “junk shot,” in which BP will attempt to inject shredded tires, golf balls and knotted rope into the well. That’s 21st century technology? The best you can do? Golf balls and shredded tires? This is why we cannot afford to drill in the ocean. This is why we especially cannot allow incompetents to drill in the ocean.

What’s going on with the environment?

We’ve seen press releases from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) about taking samples in the gulf, but we haven’t seen what the results are. True, science does not move at the pace of the 24-hour news cycle, but NOAA should have something to tell us. What concentrations of oil are they finding at various depths? How far from the wellhead are they finding oil? (It would help establish an estimate of how much oil has leaked so far.)

What about the EPA? The oil spilled is light crude, which contains low-molecular weight volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In acute exposure, VOCs lead to headaches, nausea, vomiting and upper respiratory inflammation. Like the NOAA, the EPA is testing for VOCs, but where are the results? After 9-11, EPA infamously told people the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. It wasn’t. Now they’re not telling us anything. I suppose it’s an improvement, but not much.

When will gulf residents begin to see restitution?

This spill happened at the worst time of year. Everything that swims, flies or crawls in the Gulf of Mexico is laying eggs and raising their young right now, if they can. Many of the commercial and sport fishing seasons were about to kick into high gear when the fishing grounds were closed. People are out money right now. They need help paying their May bills. And don’t tell me fishermen can get work from BP towing booms back and forth across the gulf. That’s like being invited to attend the funeral of your livelihood, your father’s livelihood and what you had hoped would have been your children’s livelihood.

In the Exxon Valdez spill, Exxon kept the damages case tied up in court for 20 years (and got the verdict reduced to ten cents on the dollar). Twenty percent of the Valdez plaintiffs died before they received compensation. Will BP’s executives be as heartless as ExxonMobil’s? Will the Department of Justice stand by and watch as gross injustice is done? Does the federal government respond to citizens or corporations that make campaign contributions?

Why is the Department of Justice not investigating all the legally specious forms BP and Transocean are pressuring people to sign?

The media has reported that Transocean, which owns the now-sunken Deepwater Horizon, tried to force the survivors to sign waivers promising not to sue Transocean for damages before they were allowed to leave the hotel they were brought to after their rescue. Alabama Attorney General Troy King had to step in and stop BP from distributing waivers to Alabama coastal residents, in which they would promise not to sue BP for damages in return for a small sum of cash. BP tried to get fishermen to sign gag orders, preventing them from speaking to the media, if they wanted work helping with the cleanup. I’m told most of these documents won’t stand up in court, but its not just about court, it’s the intimidation factor of predatory corporate attorneys going after victims in their hour of maximum anxiety.

Congress needs to hear loud and clear from all of us: No more drilling. Clean energy now! Why on earth would we ever consider letting Big Oil endanger more of our coastal communities and ecosystems?

After the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, employees and volunteers working around the oil became seriously ill and many of the thousands of workers died from inhaling the toxic air and handling dispersants that contained benzene and other chemicals.

Those same chemicals are currently being used on the BP Deepwater Oil Disaster.

In the Gulf the people at risk of illness are the thousands of Louisiana fisherman rendered jobless by BP’s oil spill.  These fishermen have been left with no other option than to work for the same company that has taken away their livelihoods.

In BP’s most recent move to avoid responsibility, the company is requiring these men and women to sign the waiver below.  The waiver protects BP from being sued by their staff and volunteers for “claims and damages in connection with use of equipment connected with the Response Activities.”

In other words, BP has prioritized protecting its corporate interests and pocketbook over providing medical care for injuries and illnesses stemming from those workers and families cleaning up the BP mess.

This is BP's second attempt to dodge responsibility and limit their liability.  A previous BP agreement, that gave residents $5,000 in exchange for waiving their right to sue, was already struck down by Louisiana courts.

 

 

The Tokyo Two (T2), are two Greenpeace activists on trial in Japan for exposing a whale meat embezzlement scandal. Now, those implicated in scandal they uncovered almost two years ago must take the stand.  Through the investigation by Greenpeace and the T2, and subsequent evidence in court, it has been shown that the whaling industry is not just a government subsidized yearly whale slaughter disguised as scientific research, but also an industry fraught with corruption.  Junichi and Toru, the T2, are on trial for revealing this corruption that implicates government officials and crewmembers, one of whom will take the stand tomorrow. 

It remains to be seen whether the three judges who will decide the fate of the T2 will understand that whaling should be on trial and not two Japanese citizens.  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has identified this trial as a politically motivated one, and the Japanese Prosecutor’s Office has a motive to silence the T2. See UNWGAD summary.   Government employees from the ICR (Institute of Cetacean Research/fake science body) have been identified as part of the corruption.  One former whaling crew member took the stand at trial in March to talk about ICR officials taking expensive cuts of whale meat off record.

For this reason and so many more, people across the globe have taken action by signing a petition to PUT WHALING ON TRIAL. Recently, the Greenpeace delivered some of these petitions put forward a request for the Prosecution Inquest Committee  (PIC) to consider reopening the investigation into the scandal brought to their attention by Greenpeace.  This committee is supposed to be a body of citizens that reviews decisions by the Tokyo Prosecutor’s Office.  In 2008, the Prosecutor’s office had promised to investigate the embezzlement scandal the T2 brought forard and instead sent dozens officers to arrest the T2.  Before Greenpeace could submit all of the evidence to the PIC to reopen the case they were denied.  Just like a political trial, there is a united front to cover up the scandal and to silence the T2.  See a Timeline of Events.

Junichi and Toru were within their rights of freedom of expression under international law by conducting their investigation.  In addition, Japan is bound by international agreement to uphold their right of citizens to obtain and share information, not take steps to suppress it.  Elements of the original investigation have been laid out over the course of this long trial: the stealing of whale meat, black market sales, government employee beneficiaries, and much more.  Tomorrow will be another opportunity to find out about the embezzlement of whale meat on the Nisshin Maru.  As the crew member who took part in embezzling whale meat takes the witness stand, the world will wonder why the T2 are the ones facing jail time.  Sign the petition: Arrest Me Too.

Keep up to date the about Tokyo Two and the whaling issue by joining the T2 facebook page.  

Get the facts: Whale Meat Embezzlement Scandal, The Cover-up, and Whaling on Trial

Past Blog Trial Coverage

 

 

The following update is from Molly Dorozenski, Media Officer for Greenpeace US, currently in Louisiana…

I’ve just returned for a week with the Greenpeace team based in Louisiana.

I think it's hard for people to picture just what the waters surrounding Louisiana look like if they’ve never been there.  Before I got here, the aerial shots made it look like a vast, empty expanse of ocean.  But the oil has made it to the barrier islands, the delta of the Mississippi, and the edges of the bayou.  On daily boat trips out on the water in a boat captained by a former shrimp fisherman named Carey, and eventually, the Greenpeace boat, “Billy Greene” I saw much of the beauty of the Gulf Coast that may soon be altered or gone.

The Gulf is teeming with life.  In the bayou, we saw pelicans and egrets, terns circling overhead.  Ducks, roseate spoonbills.  Mullet were leaping out of the water, 1-2 feet above the surface -- dozens of them.  On one boat trip, as we approached the area near the Gosier islands where the oil had been thick earlier in the week, we saw a pod of dolphins leaping around the boat, close enough to touch.  Now with reports of dolphins with respiratory issues, coughing, that we heard on the ground and media reports of six dead dolphins washed ashore, it seems especially sad to know they are swimming in those waters.

At Breton Island, we saw that the interior side had been surrounded by two layers of booms -- the inner circle were heavily discolored from contact with the oil, which means that the oil is washing beneath them and reaching the shores.  There were so many birds you couldn't even count them -- the island is home to 23 species, including the endangered brown pelican, least tern, and piping plover. 

At Port Eads, near the mouth of the Mississippi River, on mainland Louisiana, we saw reeds coated in oil, and dark thick globs of it in the sand.  Other than those marks of the disaster, the beach was beautiful white sand, and the waters were warm – it’s a place where I once might have liked to go swimming.  If the reeds die from exposure to the oil, it won’t be long before the beach washes away.

The other layer of landscape in the gulf is also impossible not to notice -- the infrastructure of a massive oil industry, platforms and piping, old, abandoned oil wells, and now, a light sheen on the surface of the water in many places, dirty booms and a slight lingering smell that suggests the heavy slicks are not too far off.  Over the week that I was there, it became terrifyingly easy to find the oil that was once hard to find on land.

Everyone we met in the gulf had the same feelings about this blowout: it’s bad, it’s getting worse, and it’s not going to be okay anytime soon.  From fisherman to boat captains, to the media clustered on the shores, to the politicians and all the regular people whose livelihoods depend, on one way or another, on the rich, vital gulf ecosystem, everyone agrees – no matter how BP tries to spin it, this is a disaster of epic proportions, maybe the worst we will see in our lifetimes. A Fox News producer told me that he looks through the camera lens so he can create one layer of remove between himself and the ugliness of what is happening.   We passed a roadsign that said “Obama send help” and at the marina, carved into the table, were the words “BP= Big Problem.”

It’s my job to work with the media at the Greenpeace, and I’m afraid that the reporters will go home, new stories will replace this one in the newspaper, while oil continues to pour out into the gulf, and BP scrambles to find a solution. If you want to help, keep talking about this story so the people around you don’t forget. 

Another way to help is to sign our petition to Congress telling them that now is the time for action to end our addiction to fossil fuels.

UPDATE: It's extremely important at this point that we do everything we can to prevent the next oil spill from ever happening. Take action now to tell Congress: No drilling, no coal, clean energy now! And if you want to do even more, check out this post I put up over on our Grassroots Blog to find toolkits for holding rallies in your community, writing letters to the editor of your local paper, and more: Want to help prevent the next
catastrophic oil spill?

Our team on the ground in Louisiana has sent us a number of new ways you can get plugged in to the animal-rescue and clean up efforts if you're in the Gulf region. There are 6 Ways to Help posted at that link, including how to report oiled wildlife (they recommend you don't try to help the wildlife without a trained expert), who best to donate to, and this bit on volunteering:

Tristate Bird Rescue & Research is coordinating on-the-ground volunteer efforts. Several other groups are helping to organize volunteers to help cleanse birds and otherwise protect both wildlife and human populations along the Gulf Coast. Our favorite ... is The National Audubon Society, which is helping connect volunteers with the best government or non-profit agency doing work related to the oil spill response. (But there are many many many others.) The government also has a volunteer hotline at 1-866-448-5816.

In general, organizations are urging people not to travel to volunteer.

The Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation are also great places to check out for ways you can help.

We're all horrified and saddened beyond words by the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf. If you find yourself actually close enough to lend a hand in mitigating the impact this disaster will have on the Gulf's coastline and wildlife, there's a volunteer info hotline you can call: 1-866-448-5816. That number also works if you want to report an oiled shoreline.

A website has been set up to help manage the response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster: www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com. You can also find numbers to report oiled wildlife or discuss oil spill-related damage, plus find updates on the cleanup from the Coast Guard, on that site.

The website of Mobile Baykeeper also has this:

According to consultants working for BP, the best thing we can do right now to prepare for oil making landfall is to clean up the shorelines. The less garbage and debris on shorelines the easier they are to clean up. We know the weather is not going to be friendly, but if you can get to your favorite shoreline today or tomorrow you can help speed up the clean up process.

DO NOT remove any live plants. Simply remove any garbage, large shells, drift wood, etc. Debris should be removed to the extent that wave and tides can reach.
 
Plans are being made to train and organize volunteers for cleanup efforts in the days and weeks to follow. We will let you know when we hear further details about this.

If you're in or near the Mobile Bay, Alabama area, they are a good resource to get in touch with as well.

Andre Muggiati is a campaigner from Greenpeace Brazil visiting the USA. He provided us with this first-hand account of going out and documenting the oil washing up on beaches in the Gulf of Mexico.

We started the morning going to a marine shop to buy the charts we needed to go off the coast and look for oil on the beaches. The guy from the shop, Mark, was curious about what we were doing there, and we told him we are from Greenpeace.

By the charts we requested, he knew we were there for the BP Deepwater Disaster oil spill, which led him to tell us, “We’ve been making a living off the oil industry, supplying them, for the last 20 years. At what cost?”

We could see all the concern about the tragedy in his face. But when I asked him his name and post at the shop (I presume he is the manager), he asked me not to mention that. “It could be bad for business.” So they will keep making money out of oil…

You can’t stay here

VENICE, LA – A glob of washed up oil sits on the shore near Port Eads, Louisiana, May 10, 2010. Greenpeace found the first traces of oil onshore at Port Eads, the southernmost tip of Louisiana. Dan Howells, Deputy Director of Campaigns at Greenpeace, and conservation specialist Rick Steiner collected samples of the oil on the beach and documented what they saw with photographs. The oil onshore at Port Eads shows that it is reaching the mouth of the Mississippi, putting even more species of Louisiana’s coastal habitats at risk—including animal and plant species that thrive only in these wetlands. Click here for more news and photos about the oil spill, plus ways you can take action to prevent the next spill. Photo by Dan Howells/Greenpeace.

Then we were off in the harbor, in Venice, LA, and headed into the mouth of the Mississipi, with a videographer from Reuters and a reporter from National Public Radio. A few miles away, we already see the thing is coming right into the river. Scary. The booms are extending everywhere. A bit later, we see workers from BP collecting sand from the beach. We have to stay behind the booms, about 100 feet (some 25 meters) from the beach. Rick Steiner, the specialist who is working with Greenpeace here, still notices a large dark spot on the coast.

As we try to approach the boom as much as we can (we can’t cross it), we hear a loud horn. A minute later a boat full of unidentified people approach us and tell us we can’t stay there.

We think, “They don’t have authority to say that!” and keep photographing the cleaning. We decide to go further, but then the Marine Guard approach us (probably warned by the unidentified guys).

“Bla bla bla, you can’t stay here, you can’t move forward, you will interfere with the cleaning .” How? We are soooo far away! But we obey.

As we leave the spot, we stop to ask to the guys in the first boat who they are.

“Are you guys working for BP?”

They hesitate, but say, “Yes.”

“Is this work to clean the beach?”

“You have to go back to town and ask the guys with the papers.”

Well, transparency is definitely not the word, here.

We stop at a beach just nearby, where our folks found the oil yesterday. Although I know I came here to see this, it is really shocking to see the oil spots in the sand as soon as we get off the boat. But it gets worse, as we see that the oil has been retained by the reeds, all over, as the tide went down.

I ask Rick Steiner, “ Is this just the tip of the iceberg?”

“Yes,” he says, “this is probably the first oil that leaked after the accident and it is reaching these beaches now. Even if they contained the leakeage today, there are at least 5 million gallons of oil down there, ready to resurface anywhere, just like this.”

This is terrible to hear. What’s worse is that the hurricanes season is coming and might bring up the oil that is in the water and spread it in the Mississipi delta. That’s the horriffic scenario we’re facing.

The lawyer wars

As I arrived at the hotel, last night, it was disgusting to see the advertising on the TV, where a lawyer was offering his services to the oil victims. It is even toll free. “ If you feel harmed and you are losing money in your business, call us now!” he says. It is directed to businesses, restaurants, fishermen, anyone. Very greedy.

On the other hand, BP is paying $5,000 to each fisherman, clearly with the intention of avoiding such suits. They were even asking them to sign a paper saying they would not sue BP, but stoped doing it, after the thing was publicized.

In another legal battle that seems to be starting, people are opening suits against BP and asking the government to make them stop throwing oil dispersants into the gulf. “Last weekend we could smell it from the docks”, a businessman told me. According to Rick Steiner, dispersants are as toxic as oil and have the only objective of sinking the oil, avoiding it rising to the surface as an oil slick. Good for the birds, bad for the fish. Worse for the environment.

The word "crisis" in Chinese is composed of two characters. The first represents danger, and the second represents opportunity. President Obama weathered the financial crisis. Today, the President faces his second crisis.

The BP Deepwater Oil Spill will likely be the worst oil spill in U.S. history. The President can continue on his current path — blame BP (it is BP's fault) and deflect questions about how his offshore oil drilling policies are likely to lead to more spills — or he could free Americans of one of the main drivers of recessions, environmental disasters, and terror strikes.

What would free America from all of this, and put President Obama firmly in the history books, is merely changing the engines of cars. The President should use this crisis as the opportunity to shift America's cars to 30% plug-in electrics and plug-in hybrids by 2020 and 90% by 2030.

Here's why: Oil prices have been a driver behind recessions since the 1970s. Recent studies now reveal that oil price increases were a major driver behind our current recession.

The President was in an embarrassing place Copenhagen last December, when he had little to offer a world that waited for his promised leadership on climate change. His current policies cut pollution by 10% of what other countries were promising. More creative, strategic leadership is needed from the White House if the world is to have a fighting chance in saving the climate.

The President can prevent future recessions, oil spills, embarrassments at climate treaty meetings, wars for oil, and cut off funding for terror attacks by adopting the moonshot proposal put forward by companies like Cisco Systems and PG&E, who called for the electrification of cars in this ambitious, feasible blueprint.

In giving utilities the new, lucrative business of powering cars, the President should demand that all new electricity is clean or efficient (i.e. energy efficiency, offshore wind, regular wind, solar, geothermal), and that utilities accept a cap that is part of a plan to cut global warming pollution by 40% by 2020 and cuts pollution to 350 parts per million of carbon pollution by 2050. Anything less would be fiddling while Rome burns.

There are many ways to go about this:

1. Simply roll out the blueprint;

Or, if you happen to feel urgency in the time of crises and would like to guarantee success, you do this as well:

1. Require that 30% of new cars are plug-in by 2020 and 90% are by 2030 through the EPA or Congress;
2. Rewrite national building codes to include outlets for plugging in cars across the country;
3. Shift oil subsidies, conservatively estimated at10 billion per year, to making the grid "smart" so that consumers can charge their cars at home at night and power their offices (for money!) during the day;
4. Require states to implement new rules for buying and selling electricity that favor renewables (time of use metering) and plug-ins without costing consumers more. This, plus the building codes, could be tied to highway funding or other programs;
5. Providing tax incentives to plug-in buyers; and
6. Simple steps laid out in the blueprint.

Simply implementing the blueprint would cut the emissions associated with transportation by over 50% by 2030. The grid improvements needed to make the grid smart would enable solar, battery storage, wind, and other renewables to play a much more significant part in America's energy production, moving America one more step towards Greenpeace's Energy Revolution.

The President can remain defensive, pointing fingers at BP, while gambling the health of our communities and economies on more offshore oil drilling, or he can be one of the great leaders of our times.

This post originally appeared on Huffington Post on May 11, 2010.

Now that BP’s jury-rigged contraption to contain its massive Gulf of Mexico oil spew has failed, the company's only resort is to continue pumping massive amounts of dispersant into the water near the wellhead, in an attempt to — what exactly?

The dispersant goes by the trade name "Corexit." It's supposed to be a pun on the words "corrects it." Marine conservationist and oil spill expert Rick Steiner says “Corexit” is called “Hidez-It” by insiders because its purpose is not to correct but deceive.

Read all the latest news about the oil spill, view pics, and take action to stop the next one.

Oil is toxic to marine life. Dispersant is toxic to marine life. Together, their toxicity exceeds the sum of their parts. The people running the spill response for BP are geologists, but what needs protection in the gulf is not geology, it’s biology.

One active ingredient in Corexit is 2-butoxyethanol, which in laboratory tests has been shown to reduce fertility, increase embryo deaths and increase birth defects in animals. Animals are the primary marine inhabitants of the Gulf of Mexico.

Another ingredient is propylene glycol, which you may know as anti-freeze or airplane de-icer. It has high biological oxygen demand, or BOD. This means that as it degrades in the water, it removes oxygen via biological processes. The more propylene glycol in the water, the less oxygen for plankton and fish.

In all, Corexit acts like a surfactant, the same thing that’s in your dish or laundry soap. The oil is more attracted to the surfactant than to the water it’s floating in. The oil forms globules and sinks to the bottom. This is a boon for BP, because it creates less of a photogenic oil slick on the surface of the gulf to be filmed by television news crews.

As we’ve seen in Prince William Sound in the two decades since the Exxon Valdez spill, oil that sinks to the bottom tends to be re-suspended in the water column by storms and with the frequency of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, we’ll see BP’s oil belched back up — with damage to the environment — for generations to come.

Why would anyone in their right mind pour chemicals that poison and suffocate fish into an oil spill that already threatens their lives? I think BP executives — in their long and sorry string of explosions, spills and mishaps — have demonstrated clearly that they are not in their right minds.

I’ll hazard a guess, though. The fewer dispersants you use, the more dead, oily birds and turtles you’ll have washing up on shore. The more dispersants you use, the more dead fish you’ll have — some of which will wash up on shore, many of which will sink to the bottom of the gulf and never be seen again. I imagine the PR department at BP prefers dead fish to dead birds and turtles.

If, when the lawsuits come, the plaintiff attorneys show up in court with plastic bags full of dead, oily sea birds, the jury is likely to award a bigger verdict than if the plaintiffs show up with plastic bags full of dead fish. Fish just aren’t as cute as birds. So I imagine the legal department at BP also prefers dead fish to dead birds.

Of course, what do shore birds eat? Fish and shrimp and other marine life. And if you kill a good portion of the marine life, it inevitably follows that the species that depend on that marine life for sustenance will also die. Just make sure they don’t get oily doing it.

Twenty-one years after Exxon’s huge spill, 20 of the 30 most affected wildlife species have not yet recovered.

People ask me: “Is BP doing enough?” My answer is that there is no “enough.” The tools we have to respond to oil spills are orders of magnitude too small to combat the damage they do. We can’t fix oil spills; we can only prevent them. And we can only prevent them by not drilling in the ocean.

Today, on the same day that oil began washing up on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, a coalition of fossil fuel industry groups decided to sue the Environmental Protection Agency to stop them from forcing car makers to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleet. It’s been shown time and again that simply increasing the mileage of our cars to 40 miles per gallon would make all the oil the “drill baby drillers” are clamoring for completely obsolete. Fuel efficiency means we’d all save lots of money, we’d avoid future environmental catastrophes, we’d be more energy independent, and we would use less oil. But it’s only that last point that matters to industry.

Us using less oil means they make less money. And no ecological disaster, no destruction of communities, and no loss of life will deter them from their profit.

BP lobbied hard against the kinds of regulations that would have prevented the disaster in the Gulf, saying that they couldn’t operate under the government’s “extensive, prescriptive regulations.”  But they told us that instead of regulating them we should trust them, because a spill was “virtually impossible.” 

Massey Energy, the company whose mine collapsed last month and killed 29 people, has spent millions fighting regulation, with CEO Don Blankenship noting that government-regulated mine safety was “as silly as global warming.”  But don’t worry, he said, because the “safety and health of coal miners is my most important job.” 

This summer, Shell hopes to drill for oil in the pristine and turbulent seas off Alaska’s remote coasts. They’ve been given the same free pass that BP was given for their rig, probably because they assured regulators that “a large oil spill, such as a crude oil release from a blowout, is extremely rare and not considered a reasonably foreseeable impact.” Are you convinced? 

It’s time we stopped treating industry lobbyists with piles of cash like they’re trustworthy negotiating partners. They’re not. We can see their pure profit motive in today's lawsuit, and in the behavior of the fossil fuel industry for generations. We have a right to expect our government to do what’s in the best interest of our environment, our communities, our safety, our future. There is no way to safely drill for oil offshore. That this fact puts a dent in the bottom line of Shell or BP or Exxon doesn’t make it any less true. The question is, what will we do about it?

Please join me in demanding a ban on new offshore drilling, and if you’ve already done so, ask 5 of your friends to do it. Because if our government doesn’t step up we’ll just keep "trusting" the BP’s and Shells of the world with our lives and livelihoods forever.