Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Regional U.S. Banks Sharply Expand Lending to Oil and Gas Projects

News Feed
Monday, April 22, 2024

Welcome to “Feet to the Fire: Big Oil and the Climate Crisis,” a biweekly newsletter in which we share our latest reporting on how the fossil fuel industry drives climate change and influences climate policy in five of the nation’s most important oil and gas-producing states. In addition, we shine a spotlight on the financing of the fossil fuel industry, holding banks and other financial institutions accountable for their role and providing you with updates on their activities. Click here to subscribe to the newsletter in Substack. Regional U.S. Banks Dramatically Increase Lending to Oil and Gas Projects While major European banks say that they intend to pull back from the financing of fossil fuel production, regional banks in the U.S. are filling the gap. Citizens Financial Group, Truist Securities, Fifth Third Securities, US Bancorp, and BOK Financial Corporation — the latter of which has said that it sees many “more opportunities” in the oil and gas sector — have sharply ramped up their lending to the fossil fuel industry in recent months. Combined, their lending jumped by more than 70% on an average annualized basis since the beginning of 2022, compared to the previous six years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The five banks are now among the world’s top 35 banks when it comes to deals signed with the oil and gas industry, per Bloomberg data. The trend comes amid a movement by major oil-producing states, such as Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, to avoid funds managed by financial institutions that they claim are shunning the oil and gas industry due to the banks’ ESG (environmental, social and governance) policies. Despite Net-Zero Commitments, Wealthy Countries Keep Financing Fossil Fuel Projects in Poor Countries The wealthiest countries in the world have made strong commitments to halt funding of overseas fossil fuel development, but they haven’t stopped financing oil, gas and coal projects in poor countries, according to climate groups Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth U.S. The G20 group of countries and multilateral development banks have plowed $142 billion into fossil fuel projects overseas from 2020 to 2022, they estimate. The major funders were Canada, South Korea and Japan — as an example, Japan Bank for International Cooperation has supported new fossil fuel projects such as the Scarborough gas field off the coast of Western Australia and gas power plants in Mexico. “We must continue to hold wealthy countries accountable for their role in funding the climate crisis, and demand they move first and fastest on a fossil fuel phase-out, to stop funding fossil fuels, and that they pay their fair share of a globally just transition, loss and damage and adaptation finance,” OCI public finance analyst Claire O’Manique told The Guardian. Cancel Debts Tied to Fossil Fuel Projects in Developing Countries, Activists Demand Amid widespread concerns that developing countries will go further into debt to meet climate goals outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Paris Agreement, activists are pushing development banks such as the World Bank to cancel debts tied to fossil fuel projects in their countries. Countries such as Angola and Oman will pay a record $400 billion to service external debt this year, per a new report by the advocacy group Debt Relief for Green and Inclusive Recovery Project. The group claims that developing countries spend more on interest payments on these debts than on education or health. “These outstanding debts may be transformed into grants for renewable energy systems,” writes Filipino human rights activist Lidy Nacpil. TD Bank Shareholders’ Support for Net-Zero Policy Details Grows TD Bank shareholders presented a proposal at the bank’s annual meeting on April 18 calling for more clarity on how it plans to meet its 2030 emissions-reduction targets — laying out specific policies, timelines and emissions reductions. The group included Investors for Paris Compliance, Nomura Asset Management U.K., AP Pension, Vancity Asset Management and Green Century Capital. The proposal was defeated but received 28.6% of the votes, surpassing the 23.5% in support for a similar proposal last year. TD claims that its climate plan meets disclosure recommendations laid out by the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero. But Investors for Paris Compliance director of research and policy Kyra Bell-Pasht told Yahoo Finance Canada that “Canada’s banks, including TD, are misaligned with net zero and are not giving investors or the public credible plans to change this.” Semantic Twist Gave Barclays a “Loophole” to Keep Financing Fracking, Nonprofit Claims Words matter. A small tweak by the influential International Energy Agency (IEA) in its report last year on fossil fuel financing offered a loophole that was soon exploited by one of the world’s largest banks to keep financing fracking, according to the nonprofit ShareAction. The IEA’s original 2021 report bluntly asserted that “there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway,” but its updated edition last year softened that language to state that “no new conventional long-lead-time oil and gas projects are approved for development after 2023” under the IEA’s net zero scenario, reports the Financial Times. When Barclays, a major lender to the oil and gas sector, announced its new climate policy in February, it cited the IEA report in stating that it would no longer finance companies that invest heavily in “long-lead expansion.” That allowed the bank to give itself what ShareAction refers to as a “loophole” to finance different types of oil and gas expansion. (The bank did not return calls for clarification from a FT columnist.) Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

How a semantic twist gave a major bank a loophole to keep financing fracking. The post Regional U.S. Banks Sharply Expand Lending to Oil and Gas Projects appeared first on .

Welcome to “Feet to the Fire: Big Oil and the Climate Crisis,” a biweekly newsletter in which we share our latest reporting on how the fossil fuel industry drives climate change and influences climate policy in five of the nation’s most important oil and gas-producing states. In addition, we shine a spotlight on the financing of the fossil fuel industry, holding banks and other financial institutions accountable for their role and providing you with updates on their activities.

Click here to subscribe to the newsletter in Substack.

Regional U.S. Banks Dramatically Increase Lending to Oil and Gas Projects

While major European banks say that they intend to pull back from the financing of fossil fuel production, regional banks in the U.S. are filling the gap. Citizens Financial Group, Truist Securities, Fifth Third Securities, US Bancorp, and BOK Financial Corporation — the latter of which has said that it sees many “more opportunities” in the oil and gas sector — have sharply ramped up their lending to the fossil fuel industry in recent months. Combined, their lending jumped by more than 70% on an average annualized basis since the beginning of 2022, compared to the previous six years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The five banks are now among the world’s top 35 banks when it comes to deals signed with the oil and gas industry, per Bloomberg data. The trend comes amid a movement by major oil-producing states, such as Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, to avoid funds managed by financial institutions that they claim are shunning the oil and gas industry due to the banks’ ESG (environmental, social and governance) policies.

Despite Net-Zero Commitments, Wealthy Countries Keep Financing Fossil Fuel Projects in Poor Countries

The wealthiest countries in the world have made strong commitments to halt funding of overseas fossil fuel development, but they haven’t stopped financing oil, gas and coal projects in poor countries, according to climate groups Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth U.S. The G20 group of countries and multilateral development banks have plowed $142 billion into fossil fuel projects overseas from 2020 to 2022, they estimate. The major funders were Canada, South Korea and Japan — as an example, Japan Bank for International Cooperation has supported new fossil fuel projects such as the Scarborough gas field off the coast of Western Australia and gas power plants in Mexico. “We must continue to hold wealthy countries accountable for their role in funding the climate crisis, and demand they move first and fastest on a fossil fuel phase-out, to stop funding fossil fuels, and that they pay their fair share of a globally just transition, loss and damage and adaptation finance,” OCI public finance analyst Claire O’Manique told The Guardian.

Cancel Debts Tied to Fossil Fuel Projects in Developing Countries, Activists Demand

Amid widespread concerns that developing countries will go further into debt to meet climate goals outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Paris Agreement, activists are pushing development banks such as the World Bank to cancel debts tied to fossil fuel projects in their countries. Countries such as Angola and Oman will pay a record $400 billion to service external debt this year, per a new report by the advocacy group Debt Relief for Green and Inclusive Recovery Project. The group claims that developing countries spend more on interest payments on these debts than on education or health. “These outstanding debts may be transformed into grants for renewable energy systems,” writes Filipino human rights activist Lidy Nacpil.

TD Bank Shareholders’ Support for Net-Zero Policy Details Grows

TD Bank shareholders presented a proposal at the bank’s annual meeting on April 18 calling for more clarity on how it plans to meet its 2030 emissions-reduction targets — laying out specific policies, timelines and emissions reductions. The group included Investors for Paris Compliance, Nomura Asset Management U.K., AP Pension, Vancity Asset Management and Green Century Capital. The proposal was defeated but received 28.6% of the votes, surpassing the 23.5% in support for a similar proposal last year. TD claims that its climate plan meets disclosure recommendations laid out by the Glasgow Financial Alliance on Net Zero. But Investors for Paris Compliance director of research and policy Kyra Bell-Pasht told Yahoo Finance Canada that “Canada’s banks, including TD, are misaligned with net zero and are not giving investors or the public credible plans to change this.”

Semantic Twist Gave Barclays a “Loophole” to Keep Financing Fracking, Nonprofit Claims

Words matter. A small tweak by the influential International Energy Agency (IEA) in its report last year on fossil fuel financing offered a loophole that was soon exploited by one of the world’s largest banks to keep financing fracking, according to the nonprofit ShareAction. The IEA’s original 2021 report bluntly asserted that “there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway,” but its updated edition last year softened that language to state that “no new conventional long-lead-time oil and gas projects are approved for development after 2023” under the IEA’s net zero scenario, reports the Financial Times. When Barclays, a major lender to the oil and gas sector, announced its new climate policy in February, it cited the IEA report in stating that it would no longer finance companies that invest heavily in “long-lead expansion.” That allowed the bank to give itself what ShareAction refers to as a “loophole” to finance different types of oil and gas expansion. (The bank did not return calls for clarification from a FT columnist.)

Copyright 2024 Capital & Main

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Green Activists in S. Korea Demand Tough Action on Plastic Waste at UN Talks

By Minwoo Park and Daewoung KimBUSAN, South Korea (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental campaigners marched on Saturday in the South Korean city of...

By Minwoo Park and Daewoung KimBUSAN, South Korea (Reuters) - Hundreds of environmental campaigners marched on Saturday in the South Korean city of Busan to demand stronger global commitments to fight plastic waste at U.N. talks in the city next week.About a thousand people, including members of indigenous groups, young people and informal waste collectors, took part in the rally, the organiser said, with some carrying banners saying "Cut plastic production" and "Drastic plastic reduction now!".The activists marched around the Busan Exhibition and Convention Centre, where the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) will take place from Monday to discuss a legally binding global agreement on plastic pollution.Debate is expected to focus on whether the deal should seek to slash production, while major producers such as Saudi Arabia and China have said in previous rounds that it should prioritise less contentious strategies, such as waste management."We are here with Greenpeace and our allies in the Break Free from Plastic movement to represent the millions of people around the world that are demanding that world leaders address plastic pollution by reducing the amount of plastic that we produce in the first place," said Graham Forbes, global plastic campaign lead at Greenpeace.People from different countries and of all ages took part in Saturday's rally and some wore elaborate, decorated hats made from discarded plastic items."It looks like the Earth, and a living creature, because I wanted to say our living creatures are being affected by plastic pollution," said Lee Kyoung-ah, 52, who was wearing a hat made of abandoned plastic buoy.Lee Min-sung, 26, said he also hoped to see changes in everyday consumer habits."I hope the culture of using 'reusables' becomes a cool, trendy movement, as that will reduce (waste) little by little," said Lee, who brought his lunch from home in a glass container."I will pick up trash more often, whenever I have time, and throw away less to save the Earth," said fourth-grader Kim Seo-yul, who flew from her home in Jeju Island to join the march.(Reporting by Minwoo Park and Daewoung Kim,; Writing by Jihoon Lee; Editing by Helen Popper)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Activism
Waste
Government

Mass protests against New Zealand’s effort to weaken Māori rights — and hurt the planet

"This is about the protection of all that we hold dear."

Earlier this week, tens of thousands of people converged on Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament in a show of solidarity against a legislative onslaught against Indigenous rights.  They had marched peacefully for nine days, in what Māori peoples call hīkoi, in an effort to stop the country’s new right-wing government from forcing through a bill that would dilute Indigenous influence on the government by reinterpreting one of its founding documents.  “Māori have been here, we are going to be here forever. You’re never going to assimilate us,” said Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn, one of the Māori activists who participated in the hīkoi. “This is a great time for revolution.”  Proponents describe the Treaty Principles bill as a push for equal rights for all citizens of Aotearoa, which is how Māori refer to New Zealand: an effort to define principles underlying the Treaty of Waitangi, an English-language agreement signed by some of the country’s colonizing founders and Indigenous Māori that gave the Crown the right to govern the nation in exchange for enshrining Māori rights. “Did the Treaty give different rights to different groups, or does every citizen have equal rights? I believe all New Zealanders deserve to have a say on that question,” said David Seymour, a member of Parliament who leads ACT New Zealand, the country’s right-wing party. (Seymour has Māori ancestry, but leaders of his tribe do not claim him.)  But Māori opponents say the measure would weaken Indigenous rights that not only help address long standing social and economic inequities but are critical to protecting the country’s lands and waters.  “That redefinition could diminish Māori participation and environmental governance, as the treaty currently ensures that Māori involvement in managing national natural resources,” said Mike Smith, a Māori climate activist who has two climate lawsuits pending before the country’s high court. “So by limiting these rights, the bill may weaken the environmental stewardship practices that are rooted in Māori morals and values and thereby impact the country’s ability to address all the environmental challenges, and more particularly combat climate change effectively.”   Seymour pushed back on that characterization. “If it’s true no country can do conservation without something like the Treaty of Waitangi, the world is in trouble,” he said. “In any event New Zealand has had its current conception of the Treaty for over 30 years, and we are a solid, but not the best environmental regulator, so others clearly do better without something like the Treaty.” The Treaty Principles bill isn’t expected to pass in the current Parliament, although it could eventually head to a referendum. But it’s just one part of a broader right-wing backlash against the significant gains that Māori have made in recent decades to win back stolen land and secure better representation and co-governance of government agencies.  Read Next For New Zealand Māori, an uncertain future as fish move away Monica Evans “This is not just about Māori interests and rights. This is about the protection of all that we hold dear,” said Māori activist Tina Ngata who has been hosting online education sessions about the bill. “Indigenous rights have been one of the strongest roadblocks to corporate exploitation.”  Ngata was part of a successful push in 2018 to get Aotearoa New Zealand to ban oil and gas exploration in its waters. The country’s right-wing government, which vaulted into power last year, is now pushing to reverse that ban. The government wants to double its mineral mining exports to $2 billion over the next decade, and has delayed a planned tax on agricultural emissions. It also repealed the Māori Health Authority — which addresses Indigenous health disparities, many of which are expected to worsen with climate change — and is in the processes of deleting references to the Treaty of Waitangi from existing laws.  Smith said that even though his climate litigation isn’t specifically based on the treaty, it lends critical weight to his arguments regarding the government’s obligation to protect the environment.  A website promoting the Treaty Principles bill says it wouldn’t have an effect on co-governance of Aotearoa New Zealand’s rivers and mountains, such as the Tūpuna Maunga Authority that gives Māori tribes of Auckland a say in how the city’s volcanic mountains are managed. It would, however, remove Māori co-governance of the country’s water services, which has been controversial since the prior government announced plans to nationalize water management. Smith sees the measure as an effort to play upon the fears of the non-Māori population and make it easier for private interests to profit. “It’s an indicator that they want to stomp on Māori rights and philosophies and worldviews. It’s an indicator that they just are refusing to fight the challenge that climate change and the global biodiversity crisis demands of us,” he said. Read Next In the wake of historic storms, Māori leaders call for disaster relief and rights Joseph Lee But he has been heartened by the huge amount of support for the Māori cause. A video of a Māori legislator leading the haka in Parliament went viral on social media, underscoring the force of the opposition, which expands beyond Māori peoples and includes a former prime minister and prominent lawyers, health care professionals, translators, church leaders, and the Waitangi Tribunal, a federal commission dedicated to reviewing Māori claims regarding the treaty. That commission is expected to hold a hearing next week to consider the question of whether the Aotearoa New Zealand government has violated Māori rights in its response to climate change. The hearing has been overshadowed by the Treaty Principles controversy, but Smith is watching it closely. The Tribunal only has the power to make recommendations, and can’t force the government to do anything, but its findings could help strengthen Smith’s climate cases before the high court.   The debate over the treaty is complicated by the fact that the English and Māori language versions of the treaty have different meanings. Murupaenga-Ikenn emphasized that the vast majority of Māori chiefs signed the Māori-language version that never relinquished sovereignty.  Murupaenga-Ikenn said she’s been excited by how the Treaty Principles bill has spurred her people into action. She was part of a massive hīkoi 20 years ago to rally in favor of Indigenous ownership of the seabed, but last week’s gathering was far larger, with as many as 55,000 people, and activists hope it’ll bleed into more local protests and stronger voter participation.  If she saw Seymour, the ACT politician behind the bill, Murupaenga-Ikenn said she would thank him. “Thank you very much for putting a reenergized fire under my people to just shake us up and wake us up,” Murupaenga-Ikenn said. “The time is now for a revolution. Thank you, David Seymour.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Mass protests against New Zealand’s effort to weaken Māori rights — and hurt the planet on Nov 22, 2024.

Activism
Climate
Conservation

Queensland First Nations group lodges racial discrimination complaint against Adani

Adani rejects allegations that press releases and social media posts implied members of the group were not ‘legitimate’ Aboriginal people with a connection to sacred siteGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastA group of Wangan and Jagalingou First Nations people have lodged a racial discrimination complaint against coalminer Adani, alleging the company engaged in a decade-long “pattern of conduct” that included making offensive statements and social media posts.The complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission alleges Adani breached the federal Racial Discrimination Act by attempting to block them in 2023 from accessing Doongmabulla Springs, a sacred site near the Carmichael coalmine in outback Queensland.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

A group of Wangan and Jagalingou First Nations people have lodged a racial discrimination complaint against coalminer Adani, alleging the company engaged in a decade-long “pattern of conduct” that included making offensive statements and social media posts.The complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission alleges Adani breached the federal Racial Discrimination Act by attempting to block them in 2023 from accessing Doongmabulla Springs, a sacred site near the Carmichael coalmine in outback Queensland.The claim also alleges Adani breached section 18C of the act, which prohibits offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidatory comments, in press releases and social media posts that implied members of the group were not “legitimate” or “genuine” Aboriginal people with a connection to the site.Statements by Adani, cited in the complaint, allegedly imply that members of the group were “activists” rather than First Nations people attempting to practise culture.On Thursday, Bravus Mining and Resources, the trading name of Adani’s Australian mining arm, made statements accusing the Wangan and Jagalingou opponents of the mine of acting “at the behest of anti-fossil fuel groups”.Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owner Adrian Burragubba, a longstanding opponent of the Carmichael mine, released a statement on Thursday on behalf of the group lodging a federal anti-discrimination case. The statement accused Adani of engaging in a “smear campaign” against them.Burragubba said: “We have endured years of discrimination and vilification from Adani, and we’re not putting up with this any more.“Adani has been on notice about their conduct since our lawyers sent a concerns notice last year, and they refused to take action. Legal recourse is the only answer.”The federal anti-discrimination case lodged by Burragubba, his son Gurridyula, and nine other family members alleges Adani breached section 9 of the act by seeking to “verbally and physically obstruct and prevent” Burragubba and others from accessing the Doongmabulla Springs “in order to perform cultural rites and share cultural knowledge”.Guardian Australia published video of a brief standoff at the site in September last year.The complaint alleges that social media posts on the Bravus Facebook page attracted offensive comments – which the company failed to remove – which describe members of the group as “filth” and “deserving of being killed”.“This company thinks it can impair our human rights, destroy our lands and waters and smash our culture, and then denigrate us in the eyes of the world,” Burragubba said.“And they are barracked on by people on their social media channels without any moderation. Well, we intend to change the racism and resentment directed at Aboriginal people who stand up for their rights,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSeven of 12 members of a Wangan and Jagalingou native title applicant group agreed to a land-use agreement with Adani in 2016, as required under complex native title laws. Others, including Burragubba, were opposed to the mine and have campaigned against it. One of their key concerns is about the potential for water to be affected at Doongmabulla Springs.Adani has repeatedly claimed scientists and others with concerns about environmental impact of the mine are anti-coal campaigners.The company said on Thursday it had not been notified about a complaint.“We wholly reject the allegations made by Mr Burragubba in this latest attempt to stop Bravus from telling our side of the story and sharing facts with the public about our interactions with him and members of his ‘family council’,” a spokesperson for Bravus said.The statement said Gurridyula had been prosecuted for assaulting two mine workers and made public threats to workers via social media.“Mr Burragubba and his allies in the anti-fossil fuel movement have tried for many years to discredit our company and stop our Carmichael mine which has been operating safely and responsibly in line with Queensland and Australian law and in partnership with the majority traditional owner group.“Mr Burragubba has acted at the behest of anti-fossil fuel groups such as the Sunrise Project.“We have a right to defend our business and shine a light on the behaviour of Mr Burragubba, [Gurridyula], and any others who act for their cause, and we will continue to do so.”

Activism
Business
Culture

Cape Town faces no limit on sewage discharge into the ocean

The environmental minister has removed the limits on the amount of sewage Cape Town can release into the ocean. The post Cape Town faces no limit on sewage discharge into the ocean appeared first on SA People.

Following a decision by Minister of Fisheries, Forestry, and the Environment Dion George, the City of Cape Town is now allowed to discharge an unlimited amount of untreated sewage into the ocean. This exemption temporarily lifts volume restrictions on sewage discharged through the city’s three marine outfalls in Green Point, Camps Bay, and Hout Bay, pending appeals against the permits issued for these operations, writes GroundUp. The permits, which allow for 25 million, 11.3 million, and 5 million litres of sewage discharge per day at the respective outfalls, have been contested by environmental groups and residents. These parties argue that the practice violates constitutional rights to a healthy environment and has not undergone adequate risk assessments or public consultation. Raw effluent is discharged from these outfalls daily. The only treatment the sewage receives before being released into the ocean is that it is ‘sieved’ to remove solids. Minister George revealed that as of August 2024, the limits on daily sewage discharge had been suspended due to ongoing appeals. This means the City is no longer restricted by the initial permit conditions. According to GroundUp, the City had already been exceeding those limits before the suspension. In October for example, daily discharges at Green Point exceeded permit limits by 700 000 litres per day. Environmental concerns Environmental activists and organisations like the National Sea Rescue Institute (NSRI) have raised serious concerns. They argue that releasing untreated sewage into the Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area could harm marine ecosystems. It also poses public health risks. A 2017 CSIR report highlighted that while the ocean’s high-energy environment has a better capacity to dilute pollutants than say, an estuary, “of importance is the volume of effluent discharged.” Persistent sewage discharge could overwhelm the system, leading to chronic toxicity and long-term damage to marine life. Thus the current and increasing quantities of untreated effluent have raised alarm bells. Environmental activist Caroline Marx, who sits on the City’s mayoral advisory committee for water quality, criticised the minister’s decision to allow unrestricted sewage discharge, citing the risks to a Marine Protected Area. She also pointed out that compliance issues with the Hout Bay outfall permit went ignored for years until ActionSA filed a criminal case. Legal and operational issues The City has faced compliance challenges for years. Documents revealed by ActionSA show that the Hout Bay outfall exceeded permit limits on 104 out of 181 days in early 2023. The City also failed to establish a Permit Advisory Forum as required. These violations have led to compliance notices and a criminal case against the City, which is now under investigation by the National Prosecuting Authority. ‘No other option’ for sewage Water and sanitation mayco member Zahid Badroodien said that Cape Town is growing and so are volumes of sewage—and that there was no other option at the moment but to utilise the outfalls. However, City officials say they are exploring long-term solutions, such as new wastewater treatment facilities or diverting sewage to existing plants. The post Cape Town faces no limit on sewage discharge into the ocean appeared first on SA People.

Activism
Energy
Forests

Has nuclear power entered a new era of acceptance amid global warming?

Public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade as the nation struggles to reduce its reliance on planet-warming fossil fuels.

When Heather Hoff took a job at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, she was skeptical of nuclear energy — so much so that she resolved to report anything questionable to the anti-nuclear group Mothers for Peace.Instead, after working at the plant for over a decade and asking every question she could think of about operations and safety, she co-founded her own group, Mothers for Nuclear, in 2016 to keep the plant alive.“I was pretty nervous,” said Hoff, 45. “It felt very lonely — no one else was doing that. We looked around for allies — other pro-nuclear groups. … There just weren’t very many.”Today, however, public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade as government and private industry struggle to reduce reliance on planet-warming fossil fuels. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. Although a string of nuclear disasters decades ago had caused the majority of older Americans to distrust the technology, this hasn’t been the case for younger generations. Old-school environmentalists “grew up in the generation of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. ... The Gen Zers today did not,” said David Weisman, 63, who has been involved in the movement to get Diablo Canyon shut down since the ’90s and works as the legislative director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. “They don’t remember how paralyzed with fright the nation was the week after Three Mile Island. ... They don’t recall the shock of Chernobyl less than seven years later.” Public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade. Here, the domed reactors of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant rise along the California coast. (Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times) Many of these younger nuclear advocates — outwardly vocal on social media sites such as X and Instagram — hope the renewed interest will fuel a second renaissance in nuclear power, one that helps California, the U.S. and the globe meet ambitious climate goals.“I think we are the generation that’s ready to make this change, and accept facts over feelings, and ready to transition to a cleaner, more reliable and safer energy source,” said Veronica Annala, 23, a college student at Texas A&M and president of the school’s new Nuclear Advocacy Resource Organization. In the past few months alone, Microsoft announced plans to fund the reopening of Three Mile Island’s shuttered unit to power a data center. Amazon and Google have also invested in new, cutting-edge nuclear technology to meet clean energy goals.While some advocates wish nuclear revitalization wasn’t being driven by energy-hungry AI technology, the excitement around nuclear power is more palpable than it has been in a generation, they say.“There’s so many things happening at the same time. ... This is the actual nuclear renaissance,” said Gabriel Ivory, 22, a student at Texas A&M and vice president of NARO. “When you look at Three Mile Island restarting — that was something nobody would have ever even thought of.”This enthusiasm has also been accompanied by a surprising political shift. During the Cold War nuclear energy frenzy of the 1970s and ’80s, nuclear supporters — often Republicans — touted the jobs the plants would create, and argued that the United States needed to remain a commanding leader of nuclear technology and weaponry on the global stage.Meanwhile, environmental groups, often aligned with the Democratic Party, opposed nuclear power based on the potential negative impact on surrounding ecosystems, the thorny problem of storing spent fuel and the small but real risk of a nuclear meltdown.“In America … it has been highly politicized,” said Jenifer Avellaneda Diaz, 29, who works in the industry and runs the advocacy account Nuclear Hazelnut. “That is a little bit shameful, because we have great experts here — a lot of doctors, a lot of scientists, a lot of engineers, mathematicians, physicists.”Today, younger Republicans are 11% less likely to support new nuclear plants in the U.S. than their older counterparts. Meanwhile the opposite is true for the left: Younger Democrats are 9% more likely to support new nuclear than older Democrats, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center. As a result, while Republicans older than 65 are 27% more likely to support nuclear energy than their Democratic peers, Republicans age 18 to 29 are only 7% more likely to support it than their Democratic counterparts.“Young Democrats and young Republicans may be looking at numbers — but two separate sets of numbers,” said Weisman. “The young Republicans may be looking at the cost per megawatt hour, and the young Democrats are looking at a different number: parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.”Brendan Pittman, 33 — who founded the Berkeley Amend movement, aiming to get his city to drop its “nuclear-free zone” status — said he’s noticed that younger people have become more open to learning about nuclear energy.“Now, as we’re getting into energy crises, and we’re talking more about, ‘How do we solve this?’ Younger people are taking a more rational and nuanced review of all energy, and they’re coming to the same conclusion: Yeah, nuclear checks all the boxes,” Pittman said.“I remember getting signatures on the streets of Berkeley, and I would say most young people — when I said we’re looking to support nuclear energy — they would just stop me and say, ‘Oh you’re supporting nuclear energy? Where do I sign?’” he said. “I didn’t even have to sell it.”This newfound enthusiasm has also affected the nuclear industry, where two dominant age groups have emerged: baby boomers who mostly took nuclear jobs for consistent work, and millennials and Gen Zers who made a motivated choice to enter a stigmatized field, advocates in the industry say.“You get all sorts of different backgrounds, and that really just blooms into all sorts of fresh new ideas, and I think that’s part of what’s making the industry exciting right now,” said Matt Wargon, 33, past chair of the Young Members Group of the American Nuclear Society.Like the workers themselves, the industry has formed two bubbles: the traditional plants that have been operating for decades and a slew of new technologies — from small reactors that could power or heat single factories to a potentially safer class of large-scale reactors that use molten salt in their cores instead of pressurized water.At existing plants, younger folks have injected innovation into longstanding operation norms, improving safety and efficiency. At the startups, those who’ve worked in the industry for decades provide “invaluable” knowledge that simply isn’t in textbooks, industry workers say. Steam rises from the cooling towers of the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, in Waynesboro, Ga. (Mike Stewart / Associated Press) The infusion of new talent and ideas is a significant change from when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 devastated the industry. Regulations became stricter, and development on new reactors and new technology slowed to a halt.False narratives around the technology ricocheted through society. Both Hoff and Avellaneda Diaz recall their parents worrying about radiation affecting their ability to have children. (The average worker at Diablo receives significantly less radiation in a week than a passenger does on a single East Coast to West Coast airplane flight.)“Radiation is invisible — you can’t see it. You can’t smell it. You can’t hear it,” said Wargon. “And people tend to fear the unknown. … So if you tell them, ‘Oh this power plant has a lot of radiation coming out of it,’ it’s hard to dispel [the misinformation and fear].”Only as the memories faded and new generations entered the workforce did the reputation of nuclear power slowly recover.Advocates also say that college campuses have become a leading space for nuclear advocacy, with Nuclear is Clean Energy (NiCE) clubs popping up at multiple California schools in the past few years.In August, Ivory held up a big “I [heart] nuclear energy,” sign behind an ESPN college football broadcast. It quickly spread on social media and even caught the attention of the U.S. Department of Energy.Nuclear advocates say the internet and easy access to accurate information has also helped their cause.“That was certainly a revolution because right now, it’s super easy to Google it,” Avellaneda Diaz said. “Back then you needed to go to the library, get the book — it was not that easy to get the information or be informed.”A poll conducted by Ann Bisconti, a scientist and nuclear public opinion expert, found that 74% of people who said they felt very well informed strongly favored the use of nuclear energy in the U.S., whereas only 6% who felt not at all informed supported it.As such, public outreach and education has become a core tenant of the new nuclear advocacy movement.“Let’s be real,” Annala said, “our generation has the whole internet at our fingertips ... so, just starting the conversations is really the big thing.”Advocates speculate that the ability to rapidly disseminate information on nuclear energy to combat misconceptions might have helped prevent nuclear energy from becoming politically and culturally toxic after the Fukushima accident, unlike with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.While the Texas A&M students were quite young when the disaster unfolded, both Wargon and Pittman were in college in 2011 when an earthquake and tsunami in Japan crippled the power systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, triggering a meltdown. Avellaneda Diaz was in high school.Hoff was working at Diablo Canyon when Fukushima happened. The public scare, in part pushed by the media, almost led her to quit her job.Instead, after taking the time to analyze the causes of the meltdown and the errors made, she decided to embrace nuclear.For her, Fukushima was a reminder that nuclear power comes with risk — however small — but that even in a worst-case scenario, operators are skilled at preventing a disaster. (PG&E says a Fukushima flooding episode would be impossible at Diablo Canyon.) Environmental activists in Seoul march during a rally marking the 12th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. (Ahn Young-joon / Associated Press) Today, Hoff writes the emergency protocols for Diablo Canyon and hopes the industry will learn again how to engage with the public.She said that’s what happened with her when she first — somewhat reluctantly — took a job at Diablo.“I was a little obnoxious for the first few years,” Hoff said of her constant questioning and search for a critical flaw.Instead of pushing back against her, the plant welcomed it. Newsletter Toward a more sustainable California Get Boiling Point, our newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment, and become part of the conversation — and the solution. You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Activism
Climate
Education

Suggested Viewing

Uncovering the Permian Climate Bomb

The fossil fuel industry is building a global threat in the oil fields of West Texas. Miguel Escoto, who has lived close to this region his whole life, witnesses the industry’s villainy for the first time by viewing oil and gas site emissions through optical gas imaging cameras, becoming a stand-in for a world that has yet to grasp the gravity of the Permian Climate Bomb.

Pollution
Activism
Climate

A Community, Fighting

This short film marks the 20 year campaign sparked by the news that a waste company had arrived armed with plans to build a large hazardous waste incinerator at the end of a then undeveloped cul-de-sac in Ringaskiddy, the industrial heartland of Cork. As news percolated around Cork Harbour, concern and opposition, evident from the outset, consolidated, galvanised and continued to go from strength to strength over the course of the years that saw a community stuck in a battle that they didn’t invite. The campaign, at the time of completion of this film, is still ongoing. This film is a visual representation of the time that has passed - from protests, to fundraisers, to court battles, at the heart of it a community subject to much struggle. However, they have not let that stop them and have truly shown the strength in numbers and staying power.

Activism
Pollution
Culture

L’eau Est La Vie (Water Is Life): From Standing Rock To The Swamp

On the banks of Louisiana, fierce Indigenous women are ready to fight—to stop the corporate blacksnake and preserve their way of life. They are risking everything to protect Mother Earth from the predatory fossil fuel companies that seek to poison it. The film follows water protector Cherri Foytlin in the swamps of Louisiana as she leads us on a no-nonsense journey of indigenous resistance to the Bayou Bridge Pipeline (BBP), which is an extension of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The pipelines are part of an ongoing legacy of colonization and slow genocide. At the heart of the struggle is a battle between people and profit.

Indigenous
Resources
Activism

Among Giants

Among Giants begins three years into the McKay tree-sit- a response to Green Diamond Resource Company’s clearcutting of redwood forests. Atop his tiny platform a hundred feet up in the ancient redwood canopy, Farmer must battle the elements and avoid isolation as he fights for a sustainable future. The film uses a restrained verite style that reflects the pace of life in the tree village. As Farmer outlasts a vicious storm, counts the rings on a felled tree, and trumps through a recent clear cut, the film asks questions about what it means to follow one’s beliefs and make a difference in the world.

Forests
Activism
Nature

The Green Amendment: New Mexico, Part One

Join Maya van Rossum, Founder of Green Amendments For The Generations, in her exploration of New Mexico’s biggest environmental issues and the role a NM Green Amendment could play in the fight for environmental justice with: Senator Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, legislative sponsor of the New Mexico Green Amendment; Emma Rose Cohen, CEO/Founder of the sustainable business Final; Beata Tsosie-Peña, Environmental Health and Justice Program Coordinator for Tewa Women United; Artemisio Romero y Carver, founding member of Youth United for Climate Crisis Action (YUCCA); and Dee George and Penny Aucoin, fracking waste accident victims impacted residents of Otis, NM.

Government
Activism
Documentary

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.