Do you think this is.

Maybe the ego shot.

Okay.

Welcome to Radio Eco shock this week,

we're going to investigate attempts 
by the fossil fuel industry to

capture otherwise green thinking ports 
in the Pacific Northwest of

the United States and Canada 
to export carbon to Asia.

It's a battle you hardly hear about 
citizens are lining up against

huge corporations with huge money 
to fight off giant coal ports

liquefied natural gas ports even 
propane ports if we commit to

that infrastructure we commit to 
devastating climate change,

not to mention the explosive toxic 
and polluting impacts of these

big projects on the Pacific coast.

It's species and its people will 
first hear from activist Kevin

Walsh book reporting from Vancouver,

Canada and then from green radio host 
and activist Daphne why from

Portland,

Oregon.

I'll wrap up with some new science 
presented at a Harvard

University research talk Dr. James 
Anderson presents why climate

change is coming,

much faster than anyone thought 
possible and why it cannot be

reversed its eco shocking radio 
I'm Alex Smith let's roll.

Multinational corporations would like 
to turn the gorgeous port of

Vancouver,

Canada into another fossil fuel colony 
after call port proposals

were blocked by a public outcry in 
the American Pacific Northwest

they wanted to call out to Asia 
through Vancouver there's an

active proposal to steer dirty 
tar sands oil into hundreds of

tankers through Vancouver's scenic 
inlets even liquid natural gas

is trying to use Vancouver as an 
outlet we've reached activist

Kevin wash broken Vancouver he's 
part of the group voters taking

action on climate change or veto 
back Kevin welcome to Radio Rico

shock.

I think to be here.

Let's talk about call how big 
is the export business from

Vancouver.

Well,

right now we have to fully functioning 
courts one in North

Vancouver internal with which exports 
exclusively be seen course

in the coup these and then Wes short 
and so which is the biggest

coal in Canada and depending on 
you know who was exporting more

it's often the biggest of the business.

Call for North America Neptune exports 
around you know they export

around 6 million tons of 
call the year there,

they're trying to expand that to larger 
large volumes sure exports

in the order 30 to 33 million tons 
of call the year and about

about 8 million tons of that call 
is US thermal coal from the

Tiber River Basin.

While so they truck at all or would 
they train at all the way up

from Wyoming.

I guess it is.

It is in there.

So it comes on Warren Buffett's 
be NSF railroad up through semi

White Rock Crescent Beach all on 
the water through there and then

up through around Monday and over 
2 cops who were shorter.

Why to using American call for.

Well,

that's,

that's a good question their hair.

They were plans there were plans 
for 6 coal ports on the US West

Coast is recently you know 
3 or 4 years ago.

Yet,

although 2 of those projects have 
either been completely have been

rejected or abandoned.

And the last 2.

The one in Oregon on the Columbia 
River faces serious difficulties

because it's failed to receive keep 
the last permanent through the

last project and the largest at 
Cherry Point in Washington.

So just south of the border.

I'm also faces serious opposition,

including from the Lonnie nation 
which is that right.

We reject this year after the so 
public outcry public opposition

and really strong committee organizing 
in the state has stopped

all these projects.

So that leaves DC.

You know it's sort of the backdoor.

But the dirty doormat for US call 
on its way to Asia and so right

now there there.

They have been exporting this 7 million 
tons a year for some time

70 million tons by way of comparison 
the the Cherry Point

corporate proposal a delegation would 
be about 48 million tons of

call here and there is this new proposal 
to build a brand new coal

port on the fridge river in Surrey 
export exclusively American

call 4 million times now,

probably more in the future.

Great.

So what problems do Coltrane 
polls for local communities.

Well,

yeah,

that's a,

that's a good point you because 
in a specially NBC and in Metro

they could because the other 
support authority that has,

you know it's a federal agency.

It's,

it's sort of,

almost like a Crown corporation.

It's also regulator it has absolute 
power over decision making on

Port Lands and that's by land basically 
all along the waterline in

Metro Vancouver so they can approve 
a coal port but they take no

responsibility for the external impacts 
that generates in the when

you're mentioning now is key Coltrane 
so-called trains going to

communities.

You know they're extremely loud and 
they often travel at night and

the noise levels in these things 
are over 100 decibels when the

but the way things are going 
and that exceeds you know.

The World Health Organization says 
nighttime noise levels should

be below 30 decibels for for young 
people from the elderly for the

SEC others noisy also vibration and 
you know that there's problems

and White Rock with the the cliff 
faces slumping because of the

vibration.

There's also a lot of concern 
over called us,

do you know we don't know how much 
called us is lost in these

trains and we don't know what the 
health impacts of law term

exposure to low levels of particular 
are from the dust.

So that's an issue.

The biggest one,

the biggest concerns a diesel exhaust.

We know,

diesel exhaust is a carcinogen and 
if a particular discrimination

and trains run you know within a 
climate of a number of schools

and daycare senior centers,

they're already running now and 
the planet it run more them so

people are rightly concerned 
about always look.

How have activist raised Vancouver's 
dirty coal profile in the

media there.

Yeah,

it's been,

it's been increasing process.

You know it well and in the fall 
of 2012 a community member in

Surrey told me about these 2 proposals 
for the expansion at

Neptune and the new call for answer 
it for his 3 dogs and when I

look at the numbers,

if you added up all the proposed 
capacity if all of that call is

exported.

It will be more global warming pollution,

then you know the Northern 
Gateway pipeline.

It's a huge,

huge issue,

but it's all piecemeal and 
it was under the radar.

So over the past 2.5 years we've 
managed to raise the profile

immensely our organization and group 
based in Surrey called even

call in dog within this year than 
others it it's process of

working with local governments one by one,

getting them on board about the 
issues having them caller put

forward motions calling for you know 
proper public assessment or

health risk assessments of these 
projects and we've actually

presented before Metro Vancouver and 
the region eventually opposed

this Surrey outright various House 
leaders you know climate

scientists leaders have all come out 
saying their post in this for

everything from the BC nurses' union 
to you then see credit union

to the fishermen's union too you 
know to groups of said this is a

bad idea.

So you know,

we've held various rallies and events 
and we've presented at the

Port Authority AGM and it's,

it's really a simple issue,

you know we're saying the Port Authority 
can't make decisions that

affect our future as a region without 
including Arsenal's decision

and they're an extremely arrogant 
and remote organization so that

you know that the contrast is is 
so stark that I think the media

understand this in the broader public 
gets that you know you can't

do you think this anymore it's it's 
you now in the 19th century

may not you know captains 
of industry where we're,

we're a democratic society.

You know,

NASA scientist James Hansen famously 
was arrested protesting

mountaintop removal for coal,

but in Vancouver I was tracked 
east Simon Fraser University

professor and world energy expert 
marked a card was arrested

blocking a coal train.

So it sounds like you are getting 
significant by in there.

Yeah,

it's a pretty compelling story because 
it's a very stark one you

know we know that we need to radically 
reduce the use of fossil

fuels to avoid dangerous climate change,

and it's the one study after another 
is coming out saying that you

know we could probably burn a bit more.

The oil and bit more a gas.

But we absolutely can't burn more coal.

You know 80% or more remain on the ground.

If women avoid blowing past any 
sort of faith thresholds for

climate change and if that's the 
case and I and I believe it's

true bits,

and I mean I've read,

then there is simply no valid argument 
for building a new Cold War

anywhere in the world could when 
she it they're gonna want you

that race.

So it's very black and white from 
you know many things are in life

, but this is very black and white.

A new Cold War in Surrey.

It's a bad idea.

US thermal coal exports through measuring 
Hoover is a bad idea and

it's something that we're standing 
up and saying no to thing I

don't think this is right.

Trying to stop fossil fuel exports 
is like playing the game

whack-a-mole you find one project,

then another one pops up like the 
recent proposal to ship out

liquid natural gas via the historic 
Fraser River tell us what's

happening there.

Well,

that's another at another 
interesting thing,

I mean you know it,

what's kind of most interesting 
about this,

you know,

I guess I should say most frustrating 
is that there's no,

there's no real effort by government 
to make people aware of these

things you know I literally stumbled 
across this proposal because

I was on the BBC if I'm an assessment 
project or office website,

and there's a new proposal recently 
posted 4 from this US company

Westpac midstream to build an LNG 
terminal on the afraid and if

you know where to look if you go there,

you can see that and you can make 
comment but if you don't know.

You know I gonna find out and the 
government doesn't go along the

Fraser and you know put up things 
on billboards or or on telephone

poles and say,

are you concerned about this.

The federal government has given 
us from you know this so that

this when they realize the certain 
size they have to let the BBC

in federal government's now and the 
government have to decide to

do an assessment or not so auto.

You know it's wisdom on May said 
okay will accept comments from

the public until June 11 to help us 
decide if we should even do an

assessment or not,

and furthermore if we should substitute 
the provincial assessment

for the federal one.

So if you didn't go to the sea.

If they see a website.

The Canadian run of 72 website and 
see that notice you would never

even known that there is a comment period.

It's very frustrating because you 
know he's a big things and we

all need to have a say so ways 
to back up to the proposal.

This is a plan for a brand new LNG 
terminal on the Fraser River in

Delta BC next in the cement plants 
Federer across the river and

just up just upstream from if you 
know Richmond this sort of all

water mania and a big movie complex 
and all that sort of stuff.

It would see 120 LNG tankers a year 
and 90 L&G barges here and

going up and down the Fraser 
River now in comparison.

Some people are somewhat more aware 
of this proposal for wood

fiber LNG in squalor should have 
a lot of press this proposal

Fraser will be 1.5 times as 
large also in comparison.

The big Petronas Pacific Energy LNG 
project in Prince Rupert would

be about 7 times larger,

so this is a fairly small project,

but it was they'll see a lot of 
LNG tankers on the river the

proponent in this to me is typical bear.

You know the project summary description 
and says we want a bogus

facility.

It's,

this is the footprint,

we're gonna look at an endangered 
plants and archeological sites

and what not right here.

But once we sell that L&G and it 
goes an LNG tanker it's someone

else's responsibility when I can 
assess those risks a crazy.

You know that's absolutely crazy 
and in the United States.

If you want to build an LNG terminal,

the Department of Homeland Security 
and the Coast Guard require

you do connect a waterway suitability 
assessment on the entire

tanker root out international 
waters to a distance of 3.5

kilometers on each side because that's 
how far you know I I think

that it cloud of be approaching travel 
and still be explosive DC

that doesn't happen,

and there is no one asking 
the fundamental questions.

The final question,

is it a good idea to go and 
LNG terminal in the face.

Really.

They just simply must look and see 
if this will endanger plants or

salmon or sturgeon at the 
site of the facility.

It's a very narrow blinkered approach 
to assessing these kinds of

projects.

Wait a minute you saying that a cloud 
can come off of one of those

tankers if they were to leak.

There we go.

3.5 kilometers possibly on either 
side of the river into an area

where millions of people live.

Yeah,

I know that's no okay so many 
backup and and quite hot.

So in the United States there 
there is a thing called Sandy

National Laboratory essay and DIA 
and they conducted a study in

the mid 2000s that.

Said,

you know,

how are we going to assess the risks 
from LNG tankers and and what

sort of garlands are you,

are we going to create seems so they said.

What's the worst case scenario.

Well,

the worst case scenario is you 
know an intentional rupture of

containment of Ellen of all the 
LNG vessels on a tanker from

something like a terrorist 
attack or an explosion.

So in that worst case scenario what 
hazards will be created and so

they said well within 5 kilometers.

You know,

everything would be burnt to a crisp 
and and after 16 and I mean

you have burn hazards and and freezing 
houses in these things and

he would decline over distance.

But if that cloud of LNG that is 
free if Allen she didn't ignite

right away as it evaporate.

Soon turns to gas before dispersing 
it can still be a risk of

producing a fireball up 
to 3.5 kilometers away,

so for that worst case scenario,

we wouldn't require that L&G proponents 
examine the risks all

along that 3 and half kilometer route 
and we want to know if there

are people living there.

If there are,

you know if they're significant 
infrastructure there.

If there are,

I know well,

sort of any sort of property or 
public health and safety risks,

because you know that in the States 
they say yet explicitly

examine the possibly of 
a terrorist attack.

You've got a look at the 
worst case scenario.

Don't see what could happen if one 
of the things went badly wrong

while and with so that that's smart 
to me you know you why you

wanna know what the risks are before 
you privy sings before or

whoever prism in Canada,

there is no such requirement and 
although looking at here is the

footprint of this facility.

And it's to me,

that's quite frankly because 
you know I am,

I am no supporter of the 
Harper government,

but I do know that they say that 
the risk of terrorist threats

Israel on our soil.

Well,

if that's the case then why you 
looking at the risks from

transporting an extremely volatile 
substance in these battles

through highly populated 
areas I just make sense.

Well,

Kevin washed brick.

We know there are quite a few environmentally 
conscious voters in

the Vancouver region do you worry though,

that your work to stop these proposals 
will push fossil fuels

further north along the coast to 
swarms or to northern ports,

like Prince Rupert or killed a man.

That's events in question.

I don't think so,

I think you know those 
projects in the north.

Local people they're gonna 
make their own assessment,

I mean I know my thoughts are in terms 
of the risks to the climate

from L&G interims of what groups 
like the CCP in the pen.

The news you have figured out but 
local populations are gonna

Broadway and assess.

The local rescue themselves and I 
and I respect their ability to

do that and their and their interest 
in the non-I think what's

going on here is that you know people 
down here are very aware

that there are these big projects 
proposed up north weather's L&G

you know it's been pipelines and 
we often don't feel like we can

have any for say,

and in this kind of future for BC,

but in fact metro Vancouver.

We really are on the front lines 
of the fossil fuel debate in

export debate because we have proposals 
for the Kinder Morgan

pipeline,

we've got a proposal for a new coal ports.

Now we have a proposal for well for 
the L&G Fraser and the LNG and

squeamish so people realize is that 
there's a lot at stake here

and they are then it's more accessible,

it's here you know you can have more 
to say you can get engaged in

the debate.

And you can learn more about it,

so I don't think it'll pushing the 
way I think there's so many

companies trying to push for so 
many projects at once that like

you said,

it's a bit of a lot more they're gonna 
pop up where they feel like

there's a possibility.

Where editor group voters taking 
action on climate change.

Find most of its support to young 
people show up just older folks

tell us about your supporters.

That's,

yeah,

it's insane.

So you know most of our 
work is done online,

really we we engage with the public 
through you know you social

media.

When we do events,

I mean we always work with other 
groups we do events too.

So it's,

it's hard to say who's coming from 
where about it really is a

cross section,

there's a lot of older concerned 
folks and there's also a lot of

young people we work a lot with 
a group called Kids for climate

action on events that,

and they'd rather their sort 
of a high school audience.

I think the.

I think the concern is widespread 
view whether it's because you're

worried about you know the local 
environmental whether you're

worried about your future.

There's something to be concerned 
about your think I guess for all

ages.

And so the tack.

What do you think other communities 
say in the United States or

Britain or elsewhere could learn 
from the way you're group has

formed and operated.

Well,

interesting.

I think you know our our whole 
focus is trying to create

opportunities for the public 
to express their concern.

The government we train connected 
off between climate policy and

fossil fuel exports that put climate 
at risk because the climate

policy discussion are often pretty 
abstract like the thing that's

happened recently with perhaps Harper 
have been saying that they

agreed to eliminate fossil fuels 
by 2100 well 84 years and now no

one's gonna be here is alive now and.

And that's just an absurd abstract 
discussion we have real

products right here right now there 
are threatening our climate.

So I think,

creating opportunities for the 
public to engage in explicit

concerns are key.

And you know we've got a lot through 
public commenting websites

like right now for the L&G think 
we've set up a website called

real LNG hearings.org and that brings 
together all the information

on the Fraser River LNG proposal 
and there's a commenting tool.

Also you can send a message directly 
to the federal and run a

minister,

it's easy to local government.

So my experience is that people care 
and they want to take action

. You know,

they may think that they don't know 
how or they don't know during

the time so you create an opportunity 
put all the information.

One place that people want to act.

I guess just empowering people,

that's the key empowering people.

Can you give us your website address 
or your Facebook page.

Sure.

Our website is BT ACC.org 
that's a website.

But the key,

we're really focusing 
right now and on LNG.

And so that's 3 real LNG hearings.org.

Great,

thank you so much.

I guess Kevin washed Brooke is 
an activist in Vancouver,

Canada.

As part of the group voters taking 
action on climate change.

I appreciate your time.

Kevin.

You're welcome.

Take.

We will.

You're listening to shot radio.

I don't worry.

I'm Alex meth at all their 
vehicle shock.org.

What is happening on the US West Coast 
where fossil fuel companies

raised export carbon to Asia.

Let's tune in with a long-time 
friend of the environment.

Daphne why for 8 years 
out of Washington DC,

Daphne,

host of the syndicated radio show 
Earth beat on the Pacifica

network her articles have been published 
by both mainstream and

alternative media now 
Japanese in Portland,

Oregon.

As the director of the climate and 
energy program at the Center

for sustainable economy at the same time,

she's an associate fellow at the 
Institute for Policy Studies.

Daphne.

It's so good to hear your voice 
again on Radio Echo shock,

welcome back.

Thanks so much.

Alex is going to be here.

You know I were just on post carbon 
radio on K W M are in Northern

California with.

Bing Gong and current IOS it was 
a wide-ranging talk I'd like in

this instance to drill down to 
what's happening in Portland.

The state of Oregon,

maybe the Pacific Northwest.

When it comes to transporting fossil 
fuels are you up for that.

I dream.

All right.

Why don't we start with Portland 
what battles have been fought

their recently against becoming 
a dirty carbon outlet.

Well,

one thing that people may not realize 
is that not only Portland,

Oregon.

Barry hit city.

It also happened to be one of the 
first cities in the first city

in the United States to put in place 
a climate action plan back in

the early 1990s Portland decided that 
it really needed to take the

climate crisis seriously an admirable,

the city had largely been ahead of 
the curve for the rest of the

country and who has a reputation 
intact was recognized by the

White House's so-called climate 
championships last December,

despite its reputation or perhaps 
in addition to that reputation.

The measure decided that it was going 
to be a good idea to invite

one of the biggest tar sands pipeline 
operators in the Canadian

out Penn Beantown Pipeline Corporation 
to set up shop in

Portland's harbors and they wanted 
to export propane from the

terminal here in Portland he welcomed 
them with open arms.

A lot of us began to organize cried 
foul and at the time of this

interview.

We seem to have one were reluctant 
to completely declare victory

because this corporation have bottomless 
pockets and is doing all

it can do you fight back but we we 
need to campaign both based on

both safety issues climate issues 
and we generated thousands of

letters and very creative involvement 
from a wide array of folks

here in in the city,

including Rani basically first activists 
and people taking over

City Council hearings and we finally 
got our message across and it

appears that time you know it is 
not going to be welcome anymore

in in the city of Portland.

We want to use this victory though 
not just to say no one in our

backyard,

but also to alert people 
to just how insane.

It is to be pushing forward with fossil 
fuel infrastructure in the

Pacific Northwest.

They have been the imperative that 
we begin to ratchet down our

overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Not only the northwest,

but globally and to draw attention 
to the fact that the Pacific

Northwest right now is in the 
crosshairs of the fossil fuel

industry.

They want to export 5 times the carbon 
and is now being proposed

for the Keystone XL pipeline through 
our reports in Oregon and

Washington is and very few people 
are aware of just how serious

this however it is to our economy 
to iron beautiful rivers and

lakes and

outside of the northwest of course 
hero at the norms and trying to

take on one proposal after another 
that comes down the pike.

So rather than just playing whack-a-mole 
they which is sort of

what a lot of groups have been doing it,

you stop one project popped up 
an unemployed we've decided to

declare a ban on all new fossil 
fuel infrastructure starting in

Portland and then moving out to the 
rest of Oregon and the rest of

the northwest and we should be getting 
a hearing over the coming

year by city officials around this 
call we want no fossil fuel

exports and no new fossil fuel 
infrastructure in the city.

So that's our campaign and and 
I think we have a pretty good

chance of winning.

Yeah,

it would be such a different story.

If you're exporting solar panels 
in bulk or wind machines.

Sure,

yeah,

I mean we would love to be doing 
something along those lines,

and in fact that's that's the vision 
that Portland quite action

plan today called for which is you 
know I get under way ahead of

the curve trying to push for by 
Kabul and walkable cities could

drastically reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions increasing public

transit.

So it just doesn't make sense.

We found that the emissions from 
Justice Warren propane terminal

alone over several decades would be 
larger than the entire city of

Portland's emissions if if our missions 
were to continue to go

down.

So I just didn't make sense from 
a climate action perspective to

be proceeding with this this terminal.

Right.

It's almost like changing your light 
bulbs at home but along a

coal plant to be built next door.

So as you know.

Billionaire Warren Buffet is having 
a hard time finding a place to

unload his call trains 
for shipping to China,

what have you heard about new coal 
ports in the Pacific Northwest

. Well,

you know,

there's been quite a few proposals 
all export terminals in the

Pacific Northwest and almost all 
of them have been defeated.

We have 2,

there are still on the table,

one in Long View Washington 
and one in Cherry Point:

both are for over 40 million tons 
of coal exports per year they

won in Cherry Point Washington is 
on Native American land on the

only land and they are,

they are fighting and waging a very 
serious battle against that

call export terminal because they 
argue that it would violate

their treaties and would affect 
their fisheries the other

proposals that have been tabled 
by up and down the the Columbia

River have have been withdrawn,

essentially by the investors 
over the past 5 years,

you may have to do with the fact that 
call increasingly has become

less and less profitable,

we also suspect it has something 
to do with the fact that these

very same terminal began to look 
attractive for oil exports.

Soon as we get rid of a of a coal 
terminal an oil terminal as

proposed,

in fact the largest oil terminal 
in the entire United States is

being proposed right across the river 
from Portland in the event

Koura Washington and that battle 
is now being wedged between on

the one hand,

there's any plan for a major development 
on the riverfront that a

lot of people are very excited 
to see happen with you know

condominiums and businesses ride 
along the river and should this

oil terminal get built there that 
project will not go forward.

So there's a lot of tension between 
those 2 different types of

development that have being proposed.

But you know,

over and over again.

These oil,

gas and coal corporations are using 
very sneaky tactics they'll

claim for example,

one of the ways 30 oil company managed 
to get the Bakken crude

managed to be exported along 
the Columbia River,

they got me a port,

claiming it was going to be used 
as a bio refinery the bio

refinery went bankrupt and there 
and once they had already gotten

the amended for the bio refinery 
they changed it to an oil

terminal so there's all sorts 
of tricky schemes that these

industries are using outright lies,

claiming that they are,

you know,

for example in the case of the propane 
terminal they claimed it

was going to be used for the women 
to cook with him in Asia,

we found that in fact it was on the 
used to be making proclaiming

and plastics and nothing to do with 
the alleviating the poverty

were women in in Asia.

So you know we have to be on our 
guard against these companies

there,

they're using every strategy they 
can Oregon apparently is number

3 nationally as a target for Alex funds,

that's one of the right wing anti-environmental 
and and climate

denialist groups that's been pushing 
a a very strong legislative

agenda in favor of big energy and 
they're going up oil you know.

So we're,

we're really fighting on all 
fronts here in the north.

Now going ask you about that.

I mean whenever big oil money 
comes into an area.

There's a chance for corruption 
and certainly you can woo

politicians with the ideas of more 
jobs and a better economy,

and eventually I wonder is it even 
compatible with local democracy

and and freedom to in your area to 
allow these companies to come

in and start working the 
way you're describing.

Well that's that's compared threat.

I think that's that's looming for 
region is you know it's yet to

potentially will change the and not 
just the political nature of

this region,

but you know the entire economy.

It was shaped in a completely different 
direction when we start

welcoming in trains and trains 
and terminals and refineries

suddenly start looking a lot more 
like Texas than Oregon both

politically and you know environmentally 
and that's certainly not

what a lot of people moved 
to the Pacific Northwest.

His experience and that the 
values of the northwest,

but you know we have in addition 
to the the traditional political

concerns.

There's also of course the concerns 
that Native Americans have

around preserving their trade is 
a concern has been without a

court and try to get these treaties 
upheld for Native Americans is

that in some cases if they lose 
their truly get weekend.

So it's a great at great risk that 
they go to court and try to get

these treaties upheld and that's 
another potential setback that

unfortunately once again.

Native Americans have an awful 
lot to lose in this battle.

This is Radio Eco shark with Augusta 
long time Green radio host

and activist Stephanie Weisz another 
big do you know Darfuris is

to announce massive liquid 
natural gas terminals.

We've got a government 
in British Columbia,

the got elected promising all the 
jobs in the money and and you

know our budget would be totally 
balanced once we get these LNG

plants,

which have not materialized.

Incidentally,

what about LNG in the Pacific Northwest.

Well,

that's another big battle that we're 
facing right now we've got 2

major pipelines being proposed just 
for Oregon one in southern

Oregon that they want to build its over$7

billion pipeline that they want to 
build through the southern part

of Oregon and then have the export 
terminal export LNG from coups

they Oregon and another one in northern 
Oregon and Washington,

Oregon and both of these 
projects would involved.

Of course,

massive equation land that a 
lot of it in private hands.

And in many cases they are claiming,

eminent domain.

You know as an argument in favor 
of her example 10 about$25,000

per acre,

which is way below the market value 
due to land borders and the

irony in this is that many of these 
LNG companies are actually

foreign owned and they're 
claiming eminent domain,

which is you know of course 
it's for export.

So a lot of people that I was lifting 
these LNG terminals are

saying,

you know,

how,

how can he possibly be using a law 
that was created to develop

infrastructure for people in the United 
States taking on land away

from us in order to facilitate the 
profits of foreign corporations

that are just bypassing all of our 
our legal structures in order

to to build this pipeline and exported 
it to other countries.

So there's a lot of resistance.

But again,

not with so much money on achieve 
all a lot of politicians are

lining up to support this,

and certainly our local paper 
The Oregonian seems to be

completely in the pocket of the fossil 
fuel industry which written

editorials saying that climate 
change is not a concern for

Oregonian Gennaro regularly trumpeting 
all the benefits of these

fossil fuel exports.

So we're in a bit of a,

you know,

in a bit of a of a war 
here in the northwest.

In terms of both keeping people 
informed about what's really

happening and and taking you know 
holding our elected officials

accountable.

Does the state of Oregon allow fracas.

Now it has not banned tracking 
this actually did come up this

year and that there wasn't a bill 
that originally was going to ban

for acting and then it sort of morphed 
into regulating tracking

and that created a huge uproar where 
people said no we don't want

to regulate it.

We want ban it out outcry currently 
there as far as I know there's

very little in the way of any sort 
of gas exploitable gas reserves

anywhere in Oregon but I think he 
would have an awfully hard time

for hacking in Oregon.

Well that's good to hear now Daphne,

I know you continue to keep track 
of US national policy as well.

What do you make of President Obama 
taking you know he talks

strongly about climate change and 
any approves exploration for

more fossil fuels in the fragile 
Arctic by Shell Oil.

You know you're getting as good as mine.

Alex I'm I'm just mystified at 
you know how he can not take

especially of late.

In his last 2 years in office,

where I think it's so much more freely 
disputed boldly about the

climate crisis and seems to 
be taking an awful lot of

opportunities to speak out on it.

Why he would on the one hand take these,

you know,

take these actions do for example 
restrict coal-fired power plant

emissions and and increase 
energy efficient,

fuel-efficient automobiles and then 
at the same time allow for

Arctic drilling and massive oil 
and gas chemical exports.

I suppose it may have something 
to do with the fact that he was

the number one recipient of BP's 
funds when he was running for

office.

I don't know if he's still feeling 
beholden to his donors.

It's really hard to understand why 
he why he is acting only hears

. And again on the international front.

I was disappointed.

The leaders of industrial countries,

the G7 could only promise an end to 
carbon emissions by the end of

this century 85 years away.

That's way too late to avoid 
catastrophic climate change.

What do you think.

That's right,

I mean we had a proposal that whereas 
the Germans and the G7 were

trying to you get indeed curb innovation 
of all other G7 economies

by 20-50 and the Canadians and 
the Japanese pushed back on

urgently and said no,

but we were sign on to do carbon 
the station by 2100 of course is

a non-binding agreement.

So even if it were 2050 it would be,

wouldn't be all that that exciting 
but 2100 it is still far out

you know past it the lifetime of 
any of these folks at the table

and I'm sure they felt very comfortable 
making this agreement and

kicking the can down the road.

The Japanese apparently are very 
heavily invested you know coal

fire power you know he's learned 
that explains their reluctance,

do you see any decrease in their 
investments in coal and I I I

suppose the Canadians do the tourist 
town are reluctant to see

decolonization any trying to do but 
you seem to suggest in in our

last conversation tar sands profits 
are plummeting as their own.

That's true.

It's just too expensive to 
produce the tar sands.

You need at least$60

to$70

a barrel to do it and they're only 
getting about 40 to 45 they

don't get world prices because the 
tires and requires so much work

at the refinery to get a usable 
product that they get a lower

price.

So they're losing some money and it,

what's happening is this massive layoffs 
in Alberta and I mean big

big big layoffs and the financing 
for these companies is getting

hard to get and their stocks,

according to one of our 
guests went down 70%,

so that's a big drop in their 
stock value as well.

Interesting.

Well,

that may be.

Let me explain why they're trying to do.

Also some of the same companies 
cap into the acts Gaston and

propane byproduct of that in the past 
have been treated as a waste

gas,

it's another revenue stream for them.

You now do you expect much concrete 
to come out of the pair's

climate talks later this year.

Well I'm I'm always hopeful.

Well,

I I had that they haven't been 
I I went to the climate

negotiations in Kyoto and I went 
to several others after that and

I haven't been to the last few years,

and I was just feeling very discouraged 
about all of the

brinksmanship and which which is what 
you always see it with these

conferences nobody shows their hand 
until long after midnight on

the final made and finally everybody's 
scrambling on very little

sleep to come up with an agreement.

It just seemed like you know I dream 
of of chess with the planets

. The fate of the planet at 
stake over and over again.

I got I kind of very tiresome.

This time,

you know we do how China coming 
to the table with an agreement

with the United States that does seem 
to have potentially at least

broken a logjam between the developing 
countries and that the

wealthy countries that we saw over 
and over again played out its

climate negotiations.

So it seems that the dynamics 
could be different enough to

potentially a shift things moving forward.

But whether we'll see the kind of 
truly dramatic commitments that

are needed to stabilize the 
climate earning trying to,

you know,

I'm not that hopeful but I I I do 
think to think well at least

begin to shift at this next Senate.

Fox.

You know.

Now America has elections 
coming up eventually,

do you expect the same rogues 
gallery of Republican climate

deniers to be elected again in Congress.

I think the Republicans have a very 
slim chances of gaining the

presidency.

I think that they have a higher likelihood 
of retaining control of

the south and in the house when 
you have somebody like Hillary

Clinton running for office.

I think you know just given her 
stature nationally and and

globally.

She probably stand a greater 
chance than any of the other

candidates they're running but a 
lot can happen between now and

20-16 that's my prediction 
at this point in time,

oil processing Bernie Sanders surprisingly 
gaining on Hillary

Clinton.

He is an independent and a 
self-proclaimed socialist.

So that's a huge surprise 
for the United States.

I think what it suggests,

is that people have had enough of 
either candidate really avoiding

the issue of income inequality and 
Bernie standard but there is

taking on the corporations in the 
banks like no other candidate is

right now.

You know I remember after the financial 
crash that Bernie Sanders

actually came out and described 
who runs America and it was

revealing he talked for hours and 
hours and hours on the record.

It was great stuff.

Well,

I see that scientists say.

Climate change will look very different 
from region to region,

and we saw that again this year 
in North America with a hot

exceptionally dry western a cool 
snow rainy east is it a big

problem that citizens experience climate 
change so locally and yet

the problem demands a global solution.

Well,

I mean in terms of the 
deserving Northwest,

one of the things that we are preparing 
for a which is a little

bit alarming is there.

Niger influx of climate refugees 
to the northwest,

city officials tell us that they're 
expecting you know the

population in Portland for example 
to increased by several hundred

thousand in the coming decades.

So I think you know Californian 
dried up and continues to drag.

We probably will see quite a 
few people moving north from

California wetter climates.

Is it problematic how climate change 
out with regard to I I don't

fully understand what what what what 
you mean by that question can

be retrained.

Well,

it's just that you know the old 
story about the elephant people

come up.

The elephant in one pulls the tail 
on says that's what an elf.

It looks like the other one grabs 
a new year and says that's what

the often looks like climate 
change is kind of like that,

you know you have people who see 
and experiencing so differently

right around them and yet they're 
supposed to all unite somehow

and demand an overall great big solution.

Well,

I mean I think that polls suggest 
that a majority of Americans do

think that the climate crisis.

The areas it's happening and they 
want to see action taken on it,

regardless of how it manifests 
in their region.

I think people are increasingly 
alarmed and are increasingly

wanting to see elected 
official take action.

Unfortunately our elected officials 
there you know largely

following the money and most of 
the money is with the club

brothers and the other oil companies 
so they're listening to them

and not to that the American people 
but at least at the moment you

know this is one reason why we need 
better campaign finance laws

in this country.

But I think what we come to the conclusion 
here at the Center for

a sustainable economy is that working 
at the city level working at

the state level,

you can get a lot more done than 
you can trying to work in

Washington DC things are very 
broken and Washington,

but you can actually affect 
policy at the state level,

and eventually hopefully 
MPs that into some sort.

National strategy.

Yeah.

That's a great point,

are you getting re-energized by 
regional activism on the west

coast versus the politics of living 
and working in Washington DC.

Oh yes,

yes.

You know and a hit lots and lots 
of exclamation points after that

statement I I'm so inspired by and 
many of the young people that

retirees so level of engagement here 
in the northwest around the

issue of climate change is so 
broad and persons here and so

energized.

It's really inspiring to see a lot 
of people hurt you know just

put their careers completely on 
hold and are doing nothing but

working on this climate crisis,

one of the people.

That's leading local 350 chapter 
here in Portland.

It's the former Andy who 
just decided this was,

this is where she needed to 
spend her time and energy.

I know a lot of people that have 
dealt with either early

retirement or living very frugally 
so that they can devote a

significant amount of time to working 
on the the fighting at the

fossil fuel industry here in Oregon.

So it's,

it's both inspiring encourages me 
to work even harder whereas back

in Washington,

DC.

We just feel that no matter how much 
you through your head against

that that wall you just keeps Nash.

You know how to go through expense 
and it wasn't going to budge.

But things do actually 
get done it Thursday.

I wonder if there's a story or experience 
beyond that you think

could help raise our listeners 
to an even greater move into

climate activism.

Well,

I mean I think the climate crisis 
you you know you've covered it

so well,

especially in your recent shows 
with climate psychologists and

others talking about the ways in 
which we turn away from just how

serious it is,

it cannot have that result,

but it can also when you are working 
in coalition with others I

what I found is that the people 
that end up coming out to join

this coalitions are some of the 
best members of our society and

mean you know just smart committed,

funny,

creative,

and these are the kinds of people 
that I would want to have.

By my side fighting any kind of battle.

So I encourage people that are in 
any way feeling defeated by this

crisis turn that sort of intention 
to mourn into an into an

organizing intention and to really 
stick out like-minded folks

because they will energize you and 
keep you going in the darkest

hours and a lot of us are 
feeling the grief around.

I know I felt it for quite some time,

but there is,

there are signs that people are really 
beginning to get it and I

really getting mobilized for example 
and working with the National

Unitarian General Assembly that's 
gathering in Portland and 6,000

members of the Unitarian coming 
from all over the United States

and they'll be focused exclusively 
on those climate change and

also how best to work in solidarity 
with native Americans in

facing down this crisis.

It's very exciting.

It feels like we are going to go 
back to our home communities and

really commit to respond.

In fact there is a website commit 
to respond and people were going

to be asked to do something along 
the same lines of what your last

guest asked us to do which is to 
mobilize towards a World War 2

type mobilization to save you know 
I think a lot of us recognize

if that's what's required to swim 
time and we need all of us to be

calling for the same thing both for 
our economy and for our planet

if were gonna stop this monster in time.

Here.

Our guest Washington hosted the environmental 
program for 8 years

on the Pacifica Radio network now 
she's bounced between regional

activism on the West Coast continuing 
watch over national and

international climate developments.

She is the director of climate 
and the energy program at the

Center for sustainable economy definitely 
where the best places to

follow your ongoing work.

Sustainable dash economy of our 
website and we are getting on

climate and energy program up and running.

There were very excited about a new 
initiative that you can see an

update on shortly called climate response.

We have a preliminary paper up there 
and we'll be posting a lot of

our activity on Algerian and other 
oil and gas and coal exports in

the Pacific Northwest,

we've hired a new political director.

You can join our activist network there,

and we were poured engaging with anyone 
who wants to preserve what

we call that in green line here 
in the Pacific Northwest them

these massive fossil fuel.

Well,

from going.

Great.

So listeners just Google center 
for sustainable economy or look

for links in my blog at could 
shock.info Daphne.

Thank you so much for joining us again,

please keep in touch as you 
develop more stories.

Thank you.

And one last thing it it really 
as websites seemed odd or will

take you right to absolutely 
and I do I will treat you,

right.

Activist network page.

Beautiful scene.org I'm Alex Smith 
reporting for Radio Eco shark.

This is Radio Eco shot made up your 
iPod or computer with tons of

free green audio from our website 
at W W W.eco shock.org that's

easy oil shock like electric shock.org.

In the short time we have left.

I'd like to pass on some quotes 
and notes from a deep and

important talk from climate week 
at Harvard University Center for

the environment,

the speakers.

Dr. James Anderson and the title 
is coupled feedback in the

climate structure that set the timescale 
for irreversible change

Arctic isotopes to stratospheric radicals.

That's quite a bit and believe me 
he covers a lot this talk on

April 8th 20-15 was part of a series 
of presentations I found this

on video.

Thanks to a tip from a radio equal 
shock listener and I'm so glad

I did.

The talk as Anderson tells us,

is a fairly high level.

A presentation of ongoing research 
into some important

developments in the climate Anderson 
covers a wide range of

science.

I can only get to a few points here,

for example,

research into past ages showed the 
stratosphere that upper level

of Earth's atmosphere above the weather 
was far wetter than today

, in past greenhouse ages.

The wording of the stratosphere should 
be happening now but until

very recently nobody knew 
how that could happen.

Now we do Anderson also points out 
a key difference between past

hothouse world and today this time around.

Humans have also injected chlorinated 
substances like ozone

destroying CFCs there were never 
there in the past ages and how

does that affect climate change as 
we'll hear from those opening

quote scientists are gaining new 
knowledge on changes we've made

that cannot be reversed,

at least not in any timescale that 
matters to humans here is Dr.

Anderson speaking at Harvard.

This is really research talk about 
2 aspects of the climate

structure,

both of which are coupled through 
irreversible connective cycles

and so I'm gonna talk about experiments 
done 5 meters above the

surface and then experiments done 
20 kilometers above the surface

and you'll see why those are linked,

but just in case I basketball 
over these things I want to

emphasize some points.

The first one is that this global 
climate structure is changing

far more rapidly than than we believe 
was possible even even 5

years ago and I'm gonna show some 
dominant examples of that the

next issue is the feedback in the 
climate structure because it

seeks feedback sits set the timescale 
for a reverse ability and

I'm gonna take a very brief tour 
through the climate system to

demonstrate how that functions now:

a look at the way in which developing 
technology provides direct

measurements for example of methane 
and carbon di-oxide ITA topic

Fox measurement.

Next we'll hear about how the fragile 
Arctic determined so much of

our weather.

Then I'm going to look at why these 
Cryer systems which are so

delicate because heat of fusion 
for waters so small that the

delicacy of of these Cryer systems 
in a cruel irony link into the

larger global climate structure 
and they exhibit inordinate

control over these global climate 
systems I'm I'm gonna touch very

briefly on this pale your record 
and as Brian talked about on on

Tuesday that the climate structure 
depends in in large measure on

the temperature gradient between 
the tropics in the polar regions

and during the EEOC,

there was a very little temperature 
difference between the tropics

and and and the polar regions and 
in that particular structure of

the stratosphere had to be wet.

There's very little

and fact.

I don't know,

Brian,

I don't think there's any possibility 
of having that claim a

structure without a Maurice stratosphere.

And as we'll see moisture entering 
the stratosphere today has a

very different connotation because 
it triggers catalytic cycles

involving chlorine in Bromley in 
that were not present during the

EEOC so also talk about you active 
of injection north of the

subtropical jet,

which as we saw from from Bryant brands 
talk is of a potential way

of transitioning from the current 
structure of the climate to one

in which there is a far smaller difference 
between in temperature

between the equator in the polar regions,

so is convicted injection of water,

it turned out to be unique over 
the US and it's coupled also to

any cyclonic flow over the US that 
that's created by the North

American monsoon.

And so we have this convicted injection 
into this anti cyclonic

motion,

which is a hoot demonic combination 
created by the dynamics.

But it has very strong good coupling 
into the catalytic chemical

structure of the stratosphere.

Note how Anderson stressed the point 
made again and again by our

guest scientist Paul Beckwith when 
explaining the new disruption

of weather in the northern hemisphere 
and that's the temperature

difference between the tropics in 
the polls as polar regions warm

up the difference is declining and 
the result is a slower and wave

your jet stream and some really strange 
weather for all of us in

the northern world as a side note,

Anderson explains why both the 
left and the right may support

further research into controversial 
geo engineering first he

refers to the National Research 
Council report on climate

engineering particularly solar 
radiation management.

The National Research Council 
just released a new report on

climate engineering particularly 
solar radiation management that

is being pushed actually in a bipartisan 
way because the right

would like to have solar radiation 
management so more fossil fuels

can be burned and the left believes 
that intruding in natural

systems like this is a very dangerous 
so research on the topic is

gaining bilateral support,

which is highly unusual these days.

Next we hear why James Anderson,

thinks global warming is so horribly 
wrong as a term to describe

the current climate shift.

All right,

so let me start with with a bias 
this this term global warming

applied to this problem.

It makes me shudder because 70% 
of the globe is covered by the

ocean,

with an average depth of 3500 meters,

and it has massive heat capacity,

so my mind most degenerate variable 
you can discusses mean global

temperature and it also carries a 
connotation of something that's

happening slow leak you know one 
degree centigrade per century

doesn't carry a huge amount of political 
imperative behind it.

It also carries the connotation 
that you can watch think slowly

change and if you don't like,

if you can just slow down the release 
of carbon dioxide and return

to the condition and nothing could 
be further from the truth is,

as we'll see.

So I always avoid the term and 
I cringe every time I hear it.

We'll never have time to get to all 
the great science in the stock

. But I do want you to hear this.

The next point involves these methane 
clatter it's either of these

beautiful structures ice cages within 
which nature inserts methane

produced anaerobic by decomposition 
of organic material and in its

and it's chirpy that's driving this 
entirely because it nature of

course abhors a vacuum and with stuff 
molecules and every possible

nook and cranny in order to 
engage the inclusion of

energy states and it turns out that 
methane 5th beautifully into

these water cages and this is ubiquitous 
Klatten nothing rates

contain about 3 times the chemical 
energy of all known fossil fuel

reserves include coal,

petroleum natural gas and they 
reside not only in the surface

soils of Siberia northern Alaska but also

they're ubiquitous across the ocean 
basins this was pulled up off

the west coast of about 100m than 
it is touch of magic to it and

it it ignites but the numbers as Steve,

what's the point pointed out,

are actually quite concerning.

So here we plot the CO2 emissions 
from fossil-fuel burning in gig

tons of carbon per year yet to convert 
back from CO2 but canonical

representation is and in carbon 
per vehicle because of that's

typically how calibrated so 1990 have 
about 6 again get tons of of

carbon was added to the atmosphere 
by fossil-fuel burning,

and that was basically a textbook 
number for for many many years,

but in 2000,

it started to take off and when 
the 2007 IPCC report came out.

These were the release than area.

This was the worst possible 
cases up a red wine,

and of course,

we've exceeded that of every year.

The subsequent to to 2007 but the 
key point is that just half a

percent of the labor while carbon 
in the Earth's surface soils,

of the North Slope of of Alaska 
and Siberia just half a percent

release rate per year gives 
us around 89 tons per year,

which doubles the carbon added 
to the atmosphere by all

fossil-fuel burning worldwide.

And so this constitutes for the 
next exhibit for feedback.

Anderson gives the example of a 
class 3 pulled up off the west

coast from a depth of about 100 meters,

that could be ignited with old match.

Well,

we didn't get to the strange way 
chlorinated substances playback

on other climate feedback in the 
atmosphere plus and this is a

spoiler alert.

Scientists have discovered a way 
the stratosphere can become

wetter as it did in past greenhouse 
worlds many many hours flying

around the world found the stratosphere 
has the same low amount of

water vapor.

But in a kink in the system.

A collision of weather factors over 
the continental United States

creates an almost unique kind of heat 
funnel that does inject more

water into the stratosphere.

There are several other sites like 
that Anderson says they have

the mechanism that will wet down 
the stratosphere over time,

as I say there's a huge range of 
cutting science in the stock by

James Anderson.

Some of it is a little difficult 
for the lay person to understand

, but most of it is very clear.

We learn of feedback switch make 
this developing climate shift

into a major geological event 
that cannot be reversed.

We have already gone over the climate 
cliff he tells us how far we

fall depends on whether we can rein 
in our fossil-fuel burning

emissions before they trigger much 
much larger carbon or methane

inputs from the previously frozen 
land and sea bed in the Arctic

find an easy link to this video presentation 
at Harvard University

April 8 2015 in my shell 
blog eco shock.info.

I'll also add my lengthy 
notes to the blog,

which includes a few links and explanations 
we've blown through

the time barrier again get all past 
programs as free MP3s from our

website at shock.org listen any 
time on the radio shock page on

sound cloud I'm Alex,