From Bill McKibbon- Different Kinds of Winning DEC 22, 2023 

We are, I think, edging towards a win on LNG exports, which would be a very good thing: a pause on the biggest fossil fuel expansion plan on earth. The question, I think, is if it will be the kind of win that makes it easier to boost the beleaguered presidential campaign of Joe Biden—which has got to be a central focus for anyone worried about the planet’s (and our democracy’s) future. And that is largely up to the White House. When I say I think we’ll win, it’s not because of any inside information; it’s because the logic of this campaign—waged for lonely years by wonderful frontline leaders along the Gulf of Mexico—has unfolded so powerfully in the last few months. First, campaigners managed to finally comprehend and publicize the lunatic scale of this buildout. People living near these enormous facilities have always known they were enormous, but in recent months the rest of us have gotten a much better idea of the scale. So much fracked gas is now pouring out through the Gulf that it wipes out the gains under the president’s IRA clean energy plans; indeed, it wipes out all the emission reductions made since the turn of the century.As hundreds of top climate scientists pointed out this week, if the buildout keeps going as industry intends—and so far the Trump and Biden administrations have granted them every permit they’ve asked far—U.S. LNG exports will eventually account for more greenhouse gas emissions than every car and home and factory in Europe. Second, new data has given that sense of scale extra heft: above all, Bob Howarth, the Cornell professor who is the planetary authority on methane pubished new research demonstrating that huge amounts of LNG leak out to the atmosphere during shipping, making it far far worse for the climate even than coal.Third, new data has demonstrated that these exports raise the price of natural gas for those Americans who still depend on it for cooking and heating—which probably also explains the remarkable polling data showing just how opposed Americans are to fracking the country and then sending the resulting gas off to Asia. Fourth, more new data has demonstrated that we’re already supplying more than enough to make Europe whole against the cutoff of Russian supplies in the wake of the Ukraine invasion. And fifth—newest and most important of all—America joined 200 other nations earlier this month in Dubai in signing an accord promising that we would “transition away from fossil fuels.” There is no possible way to read those words and conclude that we should further expand the already world-leading American export machine for fossil fuels. If the administration does announce a pause on new export licenses, it will be a mighty win. But how they do it will be crucial, because this also represents a chance to reposition the president going into an election year. Some of that is perhaps unfair; Biden’s gotten less credit than he should for the IRA(Inflation Reduction Act) which is the most important boost for clean energy that any president—probably any world leader—has ever providedIf the administration does announce a pause on new export licenses, it will be a mighty win. But how they do it will be crucial, because this also represents a chance to reposition the president going into an election year. +As the fossil fuel divestment movement soared past the 1,600-endowments/$40 trillion-in-assets benchmark, Daniel DiLeo writes in the National Catholic Reporter that a growing number of Catholic institutions (but by no means all) are heeding the Pope’s call to divest from the fossil fuel industryThe moral rationale is that it is unethical and imprudent to invest in corporations whose core business model is incompatible with what science indicates is required to avoid climate catastrophe. Spiritually, to divest is to offer a sacramental, material act of love to the neighbor — to offer resources that create healthy and life-affirming energy systems.Pastorally, divestment can advance the new evangelizationwhich must be "new in its methods that must correspond to the times." Youth and young adults are anxious about climate change, prioritize it as the most important issue and are disaffiliating from the church. Divestment witnesses faith-based hope. Practically, divestment frees capital for reinvestment in clean energy. The International Energy Agency says limiting warming to 1.5 C "hinges on" these investments. Advocates also argue divestment can morally stigmatize corporations so that elected officials become disinclined to accept fossil fuel campaign money — and thus become freer to pass climate policy.                                      And on another issue, according to Bloomberg, banks are actually getting worse about financing dirty energy:In this second edition of our annual report on energy supply financing, we analyze the factors affecting both capital investment and financing, and update our analysis of bank-facilitated financing. In 2022, financing for low-carbon energy was 73% of that for fossil fuels – meaning that for every dollar supporting fossil-fuel supply, $0.73 supported low-carbon energy, a slight decline from $0.75 in 2021. Despite improvements in the ratio of real-economy investment, neither this nor bank financing is changing at the pace or scale required to hit the minimum 4:1 ratio needed this decade, as implied by commonly referenced climate scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5C........for other issues, read on          https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/different-kinds-of-winning?utm_campaign=email-post&r=mwxsy&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Analysing the Effectiveness of a Carbon Tax in British Columbia.....The carbon tax in British Columbia was introduced in 2008 to curb greenhouse gas emissions. 15 years since its implementation, has the province seen a reduction in emissions? An analysis of British Columbia’s Emissions Inventory and literature paints a picture of the results........What Is a Carbon Tax and How Does It Work? The first of its kind to be introduced in North America, the carbon tax in British Columbia was implemented in 2008 by Premier Gordon Campbell to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a starting price ofCA$10 per tonne of emissions. Presently, the rate has increased to $50 CAD per tonne of emissions and is scheduled to keep increasing each year. Both businesses and individuals are responsible for paying tax on GHG emissions, which applies to purchased and used fuels and combustibles burned to produce energy or heat, including liquid fuels (i.e., gasoline), gaseous fuels (i.e., propane), soil fuels (i.e., coal), and combustibles (i.e., peat). For example, a person will be required to pay a tax when they fuel their gasoline engine at 11.05 cents/litre and use propane to heat their home at 10.06 cents/litre.  To put this into perspective, an average vehicle tank holds about 55 litres of gasoline, meaning it would cost the driver approximately $6.08 per fill in carbon tax. Similarly, to heat a 140-square-metre home using a propane furnace requires approximately 210 litres of propane each month, resulting in $21.13/month in carbon tax. To ease this tax on low- and middle-income households, the province initiated a Climate Action Tax Credit to reimburse households on the carbon tax. Such households are reimbursed a Climate Action Tax credit at $193.50 per adult and $56.50 per child (as of the increase July 1, 2022). Is the Carbon Tax Reducing Emissions In British Columbia? Based on the Provincial Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, net emissions in 2008 were 65.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) compared to 64.6 MtCO2e in 2020. This has resulted in nearly a 2% decrease over 12 years since the tax was first implemented. But is this really enough?  In 2013, a study compared BC’s per capita consumption of taxable fuels to the rest of Canada between 2008 and 2013. The study found that BC’s taxable fuels had declined by 19% compared to the rest of Canada while keeping its economic standing comparable to the country. Although the carbon tax is changing behaviour and encouraging green initiatives, there are still research gaps to determine if this tax is mitigating climate change and if its leading to emissions to be leaked elsewhere. According to a 2015 study conducted by the University of Ottawa and Duke University, there has been cause for concern with research gaps since the carbon tax has been implemented. First, they had noted that there is a research deficiency.....read on       https://earth.org/analysing-the-effectiveness-of-a-carbon-tax-in-british-columbia/?gclid=CjwKCAiA-P-rBhBEEiwAQEXhH5KCvnxEoSwiSEh-a4JCXTuJDWoCfaM_l-gDMNoS1DAOJYzhS64ipxoC2mUQAvD_BwE                                     More on the topic: Carbon Tax Pros and Cons .......and......What Is a Carbon Tax?

The liquefied natural gas boom hits a snag in Port Arthur, Texas. A federal court has revoked a key permit for Sempra Energy,   the LNG facility could worsen pollution in Black and Latino neighborhoods.The liquefied natural gas, or LNG, industry has exploded across the U.S. Gulf Coast over the past decade, burying once-remote shorelines under hundreds of acres of concrete and steel, where the fossil fuel is cooled so it can be shipped across the globe. The war in Ukraine has fanned the flames of this buildout, with the federal government urging companies to export the fuel to Europe as it weans itself off Russian gas. While the growth shows no sign of slowing — at least two dozen projects are currently underway — one of the industry’s largest new developments now faces a major hurdle. After years of legal battles, a federal court struck down a key permit for Sempra Energy’s new plant in Port Arthur, Texas, last week, calling the state’s decision to approve it “arbitrary and capricious.” Sempra’s project, named the Port Arthur LNG Export Terminal, is currently under construction along the Sabine-Neches ship channel, which will give it direct access to the Gulf of Mexico. When operational, it would be capable of producing up to 27 million tons of liquefied natural gas every year, giving it the potential to add more than 7 million tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere annually. The facility, and others like it, also emit chemicals like nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, which aggravate the respiratory system. Sempra’s construction site is less than 10 miles from Port Arthur, an industrial city where more than 70 percent of residents are Black or Latino and where a labyrinth of refineries and petrochemical plants release toxic chemicals like benzene into the air day and night. Local residents and advocates opposed to Sempra’s project argue that it will only worsen public health in an area where asthma and cancer rates already exceed the national average. As a result, many celebrated last week’s decision. “Every step in this fight, we’ve won by standing up for Port Arthur communities of color to breathe free from toxic pollution,” John Beard, a former refinery worker and one of the region’s most outspoken environmental advocates, said in a press release. “When attacked, we fight back — and win!”               https://grist.org/energy/liquefied-natural-gas-port-arthur-texas-permit/?