Dirty Biofuels: Leaked Data Shows Some Worse Than Fossil Fuels

According to leaked data from the European Commission obtained by EuroActiv, greenhouse gas emissions from some biofuels are higher than those from fossil fuels, when Indirect Land Usage Change (ILUC) is factored in.

EuroActiv reports:

ILUC happens when forests and wetlands are cleared to compensate for lands taken to grow biofuels elsewhere.

One recent report predicted that all of Malaysia’s tropical peatswamp forests would be destroyed by the end of the decade because of ILUC - with alarming consequences for greenhouse gas emissions - unless the expansion of palm oil production was halted.

To measure the climate impact of fuels, Brussels favours assigning default values based on a calculation of their full lifecycle emissions, hence the debate over ILUC factors and biofuels.

In its recent review of the Fuel Quality Directive, the EU proposed a default value of 107g CO2 equivalent per megajoule of fuel (CO2/mj) for oil from tar sands, as compared to 87.5g CO2/mj for crude oil, reflecting the greater environmental harm that its production causes.

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/27-5 

Christine Shearer - Will Fossil Fuel Companies Face Liability for Climate Change?

In a recent article in National Journal, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) President Tim Phillips said there is no question that AFP and others like it have been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science: “We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you … buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril.”

AFP is a section 501(c)(4) organization, meaning it does not have to disclose its donors, but has been tied to significant funding from the Koch Family Foundations - founded by the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch Industries – as well as smaller donations from companies like ExxonMobil. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil are among the largest funders of studies questioning climate change science, often drawn upon by conservative politicians to legitimize their view that regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not needed because the science is still under debate.

Read More:

http://cchronicle.com/2011/12/will-fossil-fuel-companies-face-liability-for-climate-change/

Worldwatch Institute - Global Natural Gas Consumption Regains Momentum

Worldwatch Institute http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/12/20-0

Rise in global consumption indicates renewed popularity of natural gas as an energy resource.

WASHINGTON - December 20 - Driven by surging natural gas consumption in Asia and the United States, global use of the form of fossil fuel rebounded 7.4 percent from its 2009 slump to hit a record 111.9 trillion cubic feet ­ in 2010, according to a new Vital Signs Online report from the Worldwatch Institute. This increase puts natural gas's share of total energy consumption at 23.8 percent, a reflection of new pipelines and natural gas terminals in many countries.  

The world's largest incremental increase in natural gas use occurred in the United States, where low prices triggered a 1.3 trillion-cubic-feet increase to 24.1 trillion cubic feet, just over one-fifth of global natural gas consumption. But the Asia Pacific region experienced the strongest growth as a share of 2009 consumption levels, with China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan all experiencing demand growth of over 20 percent. China, which surpassed Japan in 2009 to become Asia's largest natural gas consumer, by and large led the region's growth spurt by consuming 3.9 trillion cubic feet, or 3.4 percent of world usage.

Click to read more ...

Christine Shearer - Will Fossil Fuel Companies Face Liability for Climate Change?

Friday 9 December 2011

by: Christine Shearer, Conducive Chronicle

http://www.truth-out.org/will-fossil-fuel-companies-face-liability-climate-change/1323803340

In a recent article [4] in National Journal, Americans for Prosperity [5] (AFP) President Tim Phillips said there is no question that AFP and others like it have been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science: “We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you … buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril.”

AFP is a section 501(c)(4) [6] organization, meaning it does not have to disclose its donors, but has been tied to significant funding [7] from the Koch Family Foundations [8] - founded by the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch Industries – as well as smaller donations from companies like ExxonMobil. Koch Industries [9] and ExxonMobil [10] are among the largest funders of studies questioning climate change science, often drawn upon by conservative politicians to legitimize their view that regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not needed because the science is still under debate.

Click to read more ...