BATTLING CARBON GIANTS IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST

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,