Sustainable Plastics Could Revolutionize Waste Management In Emerging Markets

Editor OilPrice.com
Thu, November 17, 2022

As an increasing number of countries ban single-use plastics, waste remains a significant environmental issue – although a variety of initiatives promise to make emerging markets the focus of the global struggle against plastic waste.

The Covid-19 pandemic saw a decline in plastic usage; however, it led to an increase in littering from personal protective equipment (PPE) and single-use plastics. Additionally, much of this waste is disposed of unsustainably, ending up either incinerated or stored in landfill, the third-largest source of methane emissions globally.

According to OECD figures, only about 9% of the global volume of plastics was recycled in 2019, and 22% was mismanaged.

An outsized portion of mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) ends up in emerging markets due to both inadequate waste-management infrastructure and an influx of waste imports from mature economies. India and China are each estimated to account for 20% of the global volume of MPW.

Tackling waste at the source

Plastics account for an estimated 3.4% of greenhouse gas emissions during their lifecycle, 90% of which are produced during manufacturing. Finding ways to decarbonise plastics production could significantly reduce their environmental impact.

According to a May 2022 report from the research firm BloombergNEF, an extra $759bn in investment could make petrochemical production net zero by 2050. This, in turn, would reduce the 2% of global emissions that come from the production of high-value chemicals, a key component in the manufacturing of plastics and other goods.

Demand for recycled materials has also grown in recent years, with consultancy McKinsey reporting high-quality recycled plastics gained a premium of 60% over virgin plastics in the past decade.

Top corporate plastic producers such as Coca-Cola, Walmart and PepsiCo are part of an Ellen MacArthur Foundation initiative to achieve 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025. Coca-Cola says their figure is currently at 90%, while the foundation’s Global Commitment 2022 report had Coca-Cola’s figure at just short of 100%.

In addition to corporate action, governments have begun to focus on international efforts to limit plastic production and pollution. At the March 2022 UN Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, 175 countries pledged to negotiate a legally binding agreement limiting the proliferation of plastics and focusing on recycling, sustainable packaging and limiting virgin plastics production by as early as 2024.

On a national level, Kenya pioneered a strict plastic bag ban in 2018, followed by a total ban of single-use plastics in protected areas implemented in 2020. A significant reduction in usage was seen in the wake of the ban, with ownership of reusable bags tripling, although more work remains to be done in the management of existing waste.

Sustainable waste management

Given the volume of MPW present in many parts of the world, expanding recycling and waste-management infrastructure in emerging markets presents a sizeable opportunity for value addition.

As OBG wrote in September 2020, the plastic waste problem that emerged from the production of PPE during the Covid-19 pandemic presents opportunities for innovations in recycling.

The “2022 Africa Waste Management Outlook” published by the UN Environment Programme estimated that $8bn in municipal solid waste is generated in African cities annually, with $7.6bn of its value lost due to its improper disposal, primarily in open landfill.

The circular economy generates value from items that would otherwise end up in landfill. The Manila-based start-up Humble Sustainability processes excess inventory from e-commerce and retail companies that would normally end up disposed and resells it via its storefront, or passes the inventory on to its partners in its business-to-business network.

Humble recently raised $750,000 in an oversubscribed seed round led by Seedstars International Ventures, and the start-up plans to use the funds to hire staff and expand its partner network.

The business model of Nigeria’s Soso Care aims to tackle both waste management and health care access in a country where 23% of the population has health insurance. The health-tech company accepts recyclable waste such as scrap metal, plastic or car batteries in exchange for health coverage.

Multiple emerging economies are seeking to reduce the inflow of trash from other countries, as they often lack the infrastructure to process it safely or sustainably.

Following the example of Vietnam and Malaysia, Thailand announced plans to ban imports of plastic waste by 2025.

Countries in South-east Asia had become a prominent destination for waste exports from mature economies after China, previously the recipient of roughly 50% of the world’s plastic waste, banned such imports under its National Sword initiative in 2017.

Other efforts focus on the sustainable collection of mismanaged waste. In Panama, a water wheel installed by environmental group Marea Verde helps collect trash from the Juan Díaz River, which runs through Panama City. The wheel, which aims to collect trash before it reaches the sea, is powered by a mix of hydraulic and solar energy.

Related: Exxon Mobil Makes First Oil Discovery In Angola In 20 Years

Such efforts could prove essential in combatting marine plastic pollution in emerging markets, with a July 2020 study by Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ reporting that the volume of plastics in oceans could quadruple by 2040.

Decomposition innovation

In lieu of replacing single-use items with a more sustainable material, finding novel ways to break down trash presents another waste-management solution.

A 2021 study found that microbes are evolving to digest plastics, and research into the enzymes they use could help scientists unlock more sustainable ways to process waste.

In 2022 France’s Carbios entered the industrial phase for its enzymatic recycling technology; its eventual recycling capacity expected to exceed 50,000 tonnes of plastic waste per year.

Another study found that superworms, the larvae of the darkling beetle, could survive on a diet of styrofoam, presenting an opportunity for companies to use insects to help break down trash.

Solid waste is also being considered as an alternative fuel source. One cement plant in South Korea fuels its operations in part using synthetic resin waste from discarded plastics, allowing it to cut its coal usage by 30% and lower its overall emissions by 3.3% since 2018.

By Oxford Business Group

U$A

'Momentous:' Feds advance largest dam demolition in history
 

GILLIAN FLACCUS
Wed, November 16, 2022 

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — U.S. regulators approved a plan Thursday to demolish four dams on a California river and open up hundreds of miles of salmon habitat that would be the largest dam removal and river restoration project in the world when it goes forward.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's unanimous vote on the lower Klamath River dams is the last major regulatory hurdle and the biggest milestone for a $500 million demolition proposal championed by Native American tribes and environmentalists for years. The project would return the lower half of California’s second-largest river to a free-flowing state for the first time in more than a century.

Native tribes that rely on the Klamath River and its salmon for their way of life have been a driving force behind bringing the dams down in a wild and remote area that spans the California and Oregon border. Barring any unforeseen complications, Oregon, California and the entity formed to oversee the project will accept the license transfer and could begin dam removal as early as this summer, proponents said.

“The Klamath salmon are coming home,” Yurok Chairman Joseph James said after the vote. “The people have earned this victory and with it, we carry on our sacred duty to the fish that have sustained our people since the beginning of time.”

The dams produce less than 2% of PacifiCorp’s power generation — enough to power about 70,000 homes — when they are running at full capacity, said Bob Gravely, spokesperson for the utility. But they often run at a far lower capacity because of low water in the river and other issues, and the agreement that paved the way for Thursday’s vote was ultimately a business decision, he said.

PacifiCorp would have had to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fish ladders, fish screens and other conservation upgrades under environmental regulations that were not in place when the aging dams were first built. But with the deal approved Thursday, the utility’s cost is capped at $200 million, with another $250 million from a California voter-approved water bond.

“We’re closing coal plants and building wind farms and it all just has to add up in the end. It’s not a one-to-one,” he said of the coming dam demolition. “You can make up that power by the way you operate the rest of your facilities or having energy efficiency savings so your customers are using less.”

Approval of the order to surrender the dams’ operating license is the bedrock of the most ambitious salmon restoration plan in history and the project's scope — measured by the number of dams and the amount of river habitat that would reopen to salmon — makes it the largest of its kind in the world, said Amy Souers Kober, spokesperson for American Rivers, which monitors dam removals and advocates for river restoration.

More than 300 miles (483 kilometers) of salmon habitat in the Klamath River and its tributaries would benefit, she said.

The decision is in line with a trend toward removing aging and outdated dams across the U.S. as they come up for license renewal and confront the same government-mandated upgrade costs as the Klamath River dams would have had.

Across the U.S., 1,951 dams have been demolished as of February, including 57 in 2021, American Rivers said. Most of those have come down in the past 25 years as facilities age and come up for relicensing.

Commissioners on Thursday called the decision “momentous” and “historic” and spoke of the importance of taking the action during National Native American Heritage Month because of its importance to restoring salmon and reviving the river that is at the heart of the culture of several tribes in the region.

“Some people might ask in this time of great need for zero emissions, ‘Why are we removing the dams?’ First, we have to understand this doesn’t happen every day … a lot of these projects were licensed a number of years back when there wasn’t as much focus on environmental issues,” said FERC Chairman Richard Glick. “Some of these projects have a significant impact on the environment and a significant impact on fish."

Glick added that, in the past, the commission did not consider the effect of energy projects on tribes but said that was a “very important element” of Thursday's decision.

Members of the Yurok, Karuk and Hoopa Valley tribes and other supporters lit a bonfire and watched the vote on a remote Klamath River sandbar via a satellite uplink to symbolize their hopes for the river’s renewal.

“I understand that some of those tribes are watching this meeting today on the (river) bar and I raise a toast to you,” Commissioner Willie Phillips said.

The vote comes at a critical moment when human-caused climate change is hammering the Western United States with prolonged drought, said Tom Kiernan, president of American Rivers. He said allowing California’s second-largest river to flow naturally, and its flood plains and wetlands to function normally, would mitigate those impacts.

“The best way of managing increasing floods and droughts is to allow the river system to be healthy and do its thing,” he said.

The Klamath Basin watershed covers more than 14,500 square miles (37,500 square kilometers) and the Klamath itself was once the third-largest salmon producing river on the West Coast. But the dams, constructed between 1918 and 1962, essentially cut the river in half and prevent salmon from reaching spawning grounds upstream. Consequently, salmon runs have been dwindling for years.

The smallest dam, Copco 2, could come down as early as this summer. The remaining dams — one in southern Oregon and two in California — will be drained down very slowly starting in early 2024 with the goal of returning the river to its natural state by the end of that year.

Plans to remove the dams have not been without controversy.

Homeowners on Copco Lake, a large reservoir, vigorously oppose the demolition plan and rate payers in the rural counties around the dams worry about taxpayers shouldering the cost of any overruns or liability problems. Critics also believe dam removal won't be enough to save the salmon because of changing ocean conditions the fish encounter before the return to their natal river.

“The whole question is, will this add to the increased production of salmon? It has everything to do with what’s going on in the ocean (and) we think this will turn out to be a futile effort,” said Richard Marshall, head of the Siskiyou County Water Users Association. “Nobody’s ever tried to take care of the problem by taking care of the existing situation without just removing the dams.”

U.S. regulators raised flags about the potential for cost overruns and liability issues in 2020, nearly killing the proposal, but Oregon, California and PacifiCorp, which operates the hydroelectric dams and is owned by billionaire Warren Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway, teamed up to add another $50 million in contingency funds.

PacifiCorp will continue to operate the dams until the demolition begins.

The largest U.S. dam demolition to date is the removal of two dams on the Elwha River on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula in 2012.

___

A dam on the lower Klamath River known as Copco 2 is seen near Hornbrook, Calif., on March 3, 2020. Plans for the largest dam demolition project in U.S. history to save imperiled salmon could soon become reality, with the first stages of construction starting in California as early as this summer. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission meets Thursday, Nov. 17, 2022, and is expected to vote on whether to approve the surrender of PacificCorp's hydroelectric license for four dams on the lower Klamath River in remote northern California.

(AP Photo/Gillian Flaccus, File)

Why fixing methane leaks from the oil and gas industry can be a climate game-changer – one that pays for itself

Jim Krane, Fellow for Energy Studies, Baker Institute for Public Policy; Lecturer, Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University

THE CONVERSATION
Thu, November 17, 2022

Methane can leak from pipelines, oil and gas wells, even burners on your stove. Jens Büttner/picture alliance via Getty Images

What’s the cheapest, quickest way to reduce climate change without roiling the economy? In the United States, it may be by reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

Methane is the main component of natural gas, and it can leak anywhere along the supply chain, from the wellhead and processing plant, through pipelines and distribution lines, all the way to the burner of your home’s stove or furnace.

Once it reaches the atmosphere, methane’s super heat-trapping properties render it a major agent of warming. Over 20 years, methane causes 85 times more warming than the same amount of carbon dioxide. But methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for long, so stopping methane leaks today can have a fast impact on lowering global temperatures.

That’s one reason governments at the COP27, the 2022 United Nations climate change conference in Egypt, have focused on methane as an easy win in the climate battle.

So far, 130 countries, including the United States and most of the big oil producers other than Russia, have pledged to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas by at least 30%. China has not signed but has agreed to reduce emissions. If those pledges are met, the result would be equivalent to eliminating the greenhouse gas emissions from all of the world’s cars, trucks, buses and all two- and three-wheeled vehicles, according to the International Energy Agency.

There’s also another reason for the methane focus, and it makes this strategy more likely to succeed: Stopping methane leaks from the oil and gas industry can largely pay for itself and boost the amount of fuel available.
Capturing methane can pay off

Methane is produced by decaying organic material. Natural sources, such as wetlands, account for roughly 40% of today’s global methane emissions. But the majority comes from human activities, such as farms, landfills and wastewater treatment plants – and fuel production. Oil, gas and coal together make up about a third of global methane emissions.

In all, methane is responsible for almost a third of the 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) that global temperatures have risen since the industrial era.

Unfortunately, methane emissions are still rising. In 2021, atmospheric levels increased to 1,908 parts per billion, the highest levels in at least 800,000 years. Last year’s increase of 18 parts per billion was the biggest on record.

Among the sources, the oil and gas sector is best equipped to stop emitting because it is already configured to sell any methane it can prevent from leaking.

Methane leaks and “venting” in the oil and gas sector have numerous causes. Unintentional leaks can flow from pneumatic devices, valves, compressors and storage tanks, which often are designed to vent methane when pressures build.

Unlit or inefficient flares are another big source. Some companies routinely burn off excess gas that they can’t easily capture or don’t have the pipeline capacity to transport, but that still releases methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Nearly all of these emissions can be stopped with new components or regulations that prohibit routine flaring.

Making those repairs can pay off. Global oil and gas operations emitted more methane in 2021 than Canada consumed that entire year, according to IEA estimates. If that gas were captured, at current U.S. prices – $4 per million British thermal unit – that wasted methane would fetch around $17 billion. The IEA determined that a one-time investment of $11 billion would eliminate roughly 75% of methane leaks worldwide, along with an even larger amount of gas that is wasted by “flaring” or burning it off at the wellhead.

The repairs and infrastructure investments would not only reduce warming, but they would also generate profits for producers and provide direly needed natural gas to markets undergoing drastic shortages due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Getting companies to cut methane emissions

Motivating U.S. producers to act has been the big hurdle.

The Biden administration is aiming for an 87% reduction in methane emissions below 2005 levels by the end of the decade. To get there, it has reimposed and strengthened U.S. methane rules that were dropped by the Trump administration. These include requiring drillers to find and repair leaks at more than 1 million U.S. well sites.

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 further incentivizes methane mitigation, including by levying an emissions tax on large oil and gas producers starting at $900 per ton in 2024, increasing to $1,500 in 2026. That fee, which can be waived by the Environmental Protection Agency and doesn’t affect small producers or leaks below 0.2% of gas produced, is based on the social cost to society from methane’s contribution to climate damage.

Customers are also putting pressure on the industry. Regulatory indifference by the Trump administration to U.S. methane flaring and venting led to cancellation of some European plans to import U.S. liquefied natural gas.

Reducing methane isn’t always straightforward, though, particularly in the U.S., where thousands of oil companies operate with minimal oversight.

A company’s methane emissions aren’t necessarily proportional to its oil and gas production, either. For example, a 2021 study using data from the EPA found Texas-based Hilcorp Energy reporting nearly 50% more methane emissions than ExxonMobil, despite producing less oil and gas. Hilcorp, which specializes in acquiring “late life” assets, says it is working to reduce emissions. Other little-known producers have also reported large emissions.

Investor pressure has pushed several publicly traded companies to reduce their methane emissions, but in practice this sometimes leads them to sell off “dirty” assets to smaller operators with less oversight.

In such a situation, the easiest way to encourage companies to clean up is via a tax. Done right, companies would act before they had to pay.
Using technology to keep emissions in check

Unlike carbon dioxide, which lingers in the atmosphere for a century or more, methane only sticks around for about a dozen years. So, if humans stop replenishing methane stocks in the atmosphere, those levels will decline.

A review of methane leaks in the Permian Basin shows the big impact that some regions can have.

Researchers found that gas and oil operations in the Permian, in west Texas and New Mexico, had a leakage rate estimated at 3.7% in 2018 and 2019, before the pandemic. A 2012 study found that leakage rates above 3.2% make climate damage from using natural gas worse than that from burning coal, which is normally considered the biggest climate threat.

Map of methane emissions from oil, gas and coal globally, 2016. Joshua Stevens/NASA Earth Observatory

Methane leaks used to escape detection because the gas is invisible. Now, the proliferation of satellite-based sensors and infrared cameras makes detection easy.

Companies such as GTI Energy’s Veritas, Project Canary and MiQ have also launched to assist natural gas producers in reducing emissions and then verifying the reductions. At that point, if leaks are less than 0.2%, producers can avoid the federal fee and also market their output as “responsibly sourced” gas.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Jim Krane, Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. 

Read more:

Is your gas stove bad for your health?

Reducing methane is crucial for protecting climate and health, and it can pay for itself – so why aren’t more companies doing it?

Small nuclear cheaper than solar and wind as Canada greens its power grid: report

NO EMPIRCAL TRUTH TO THIS STATEMENT

Jeff Lagerquist - 

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) should hedge its bet on solar and wind making up the bulk of the country’s new power-generating capacity into 2050, according to a new report suggesting small nuclear reactors are the best option to do so.


Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of the small nuclear reactor technology, having operated reactors for over 70 years, according to the C.D. Howe report. (GETTY)

Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of small nuclear reactor technology, having operated reactors for over 70 years, the C.D. Howe Institute says in a report released Tuesday. Canada has 19 operable reactors, and is the world’s second-largest producer of uranium, a key component of nuclear fuel. In 2021, Ontario Power Generation said Canada could support 70 to 80 per cent of a nuclear supply chain, from fuel production to parts manufacturing.

However, the CER’s projection includes no expansion of Canadian nuclear assets, only refurbishment of existing reactors. Wind and solar account for about a quarter of the nation’s total expected power generation by 2050, the year Canada has committed to net-zero emissions.

Solar and wind are set to make up 60 per cent of the increase in new capacity added between 2019 and 2050, according to C.D. Howe's researchers. But that means added costs for energy storage.

“The Achilles heel of wind and solar is provision of adequate storage, at reasonable cost, of power not needed in the middle of the day, but needed when the sun is not shining and/or the wind is not blowing,” authors John Richards and Christopher Mabry wrote in the report.

C.D. Howe’s findings follow a report from Royal Bank of Canada in September calling for energy consumption in Canada to surge 50 per cent in the next decade. The bank warned of power shortages as early as 2026.

Related video: The Canadians who want to see more nuclear energy

Duration 3:06 View on Watch

Nuclear power is an important source of low-carbon energy: World Nuclear Association

In their report, Richards and Marby rank the cost of various power sources, with nuclear power from small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) being the cheapest to operate, once storage costs for wind and solar energy are accounted for. Unlike larger nuclear power plants, which often overrun cost estimates and experience construction delays, SMRs are less complex and require less material and labour.


Source: C.D. Howe Institute© Provided by Yahoo Finance Canada

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) defines small reactors as having capacity under 300 MW of capacity. Last month, the Canada Infrastructure Bank announced a deal with Ontario Power Generation to provide $970 million to build the country's first small modular reactor next to the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont. The federal government’s fall economic statement also included a tax credit of up to 30 percent for investment in clean technologies, including SMRs.

C.D. Howe calls Ottawa’s recent nuclear policy offerings “a modest down payment in its green energy financial support,” while stressing that Canada’s net-zero goals will require a “massive reconfiguration” of the power sector.

“These are welcome actions from Ottawa, however nuclear energy is still excluded from some major federal clean energy funding programs such as the Green Bond Framework,” Richards and Marby wrote. “Much more funding will be needed to ensure we don’t put all our eggs in the wind and solar basket.”

The energy crisis in Europe ignited by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has helped nuclear power overcome some of its reputational baggage amid greater focus on energy security. Governments from Japan to South Korea to the United States have made policy “U-turns” on nuclear power over the past year amid soaring energy prices, according to a large Canadian uranium investor.

"What politicians have figured out is that we've loaded a lot of intermittent power into the grid over the last 20 years, and that's been a good thing. But it's not a magic bullet," Sprott Asset Management CEO John Ciampaglia told Yahoo Finance Canada in August. The Toronto-based financial firm operates the world’s largest physical uranium investment fund. (U-UN.TO).

"You need backup baseload power generation to offset the intermittency of renewables,” Ciampaglia added. “There are only three ways to do that. You can burn natural gas. You can burn coal. Or you can have nuclear power plants."

Jeff Lagerquist is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow him on Twitter @jefflagerquist.

Download the Yahoo Finance app, available for Apple and Android.

'Bridge fuel' or climate villain? Natural gas in the spotlight as COP27 continues

CALGARY — After long enjoying a reputation as a "bridge fuel" capable of helping the world achieve its climate goals, natural gas is losing some of its environmental lustre — and that has implications for Canada's energy sector.

Canada is the fourth-largest global producer and sixth-largest exporter of natural gas. And with the war in Ukraine driving a global energy crisis, companies like Enbridge Inc. and TC Energy say they expect demand to grow for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from Canada in the coming years.

But natural gas — once seen as a low-emitting fuel able to act as a stopgap until more renewable sources of energy could be developed — has been taking heat at this year's U.N. COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

“It’s the right time to clear the air on natural gas," said Binnu Jeyakumar, clean electricity director for clean energy think-tank the Pembina Institute, in an interview from the COP27 climate summit, which she is attending this week.

"We as Canadians need to have a fuller view of the emissions profile of natural gas."

Canadian energy companies have long touted natural gas as a "cleaner" alternative, suggesting that projects like the massive LNG Canada export terminal currently under construction near Kitimat, B.C. can be part of the climate change solution by helping to displace coal-fired power generation around the globe.

It's true that, when burned, natural gas produces far fewer carbon dioxide emissions than oil or coal. That means that in some cases, it has made sense for jurisdictions to move from a "worse" fossil fuel to a better one.

For example, by converting its coal-fired power plants to natural gas, the province of Alberta has managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by nearly 40 million tonnes in less than a decade, a feat that has been hailed by experts as a major climate success story.

But delegates at this year's climate summit are increasingly calling attention to the natural gas industry's role in the production of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas that leaks from natural gas pipelines and wells in the form of "fugitive emissions" or is released during the venting and flaring part of the natural gas extraction process.

Jeyakumar said if the world is serious about its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, then to drive greenhouse gas production down even further, the majority of electricity production going forward needs to be done through renewables.

Related video: Canada places 58 out of 63 in climate change performance ranking

Duration 2:02   View on Watch

“I think the risk with viewing (natural gas) as a bridge fuel is that it could lead one to build natural gas assets, and these assets have an economic life of several decades," she said.

"So what this does is lock us into these assets . . . and they become stranded assets.”

In Sharm el-Sheikh, both Canada and the U.S. pledged to take further steps to reduce methane emissions, with Canada stating it aims to eliminate 75 per cent of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector compared with 2005 levels by 2030.

But David Hughes, president of energy consultancy Global Sustainability Research Inc., said even without any LNG exports, Canada will be hard-pressed to meet its climate targets. He said once LNG Canada comes on-stream — and its full life-cycle of emissions from production and processing of the gas, pipeline transportation, liquefaction and shipping are taken into effect — it will be nearly impossible.

"It really makes it a hopeless situation," Hughes said. "The amount of carbon capture and storage and so forth that you would need to do in order to meet your commitments would be huge."

Dennis McConaghy, a former executive vice-president at TransCanada Corp., now TC Energy, said he believes the current debate over natural gas needs to take into account that the world needs affordable, reliable energy.

"The minute you say you are going to decarbonize, you can demonize natural gas," McConaghy said in an interview. "But the cost of trying to do this has almost gone without consideration."

McConaghy said he believes a balanced approach that mitigates the worst effects of climate change while still strategically using natural gas to maximize human well-being is the answer.

"Because to completely eliminate the production and use of all hydrocarbons is, in my view, an extraordinarily extreme view and an extreme objective," he said.

According to the International Energy Agency, the "golden age" of natural gas was in the 2010s, when the U.S. was going through a large-scale phaseout of coal-fired power plants in favour of natural gas.

With the climate policies that have been implemented by countries since, the IEA now says it expects the world will hit peak natural gas demand as early as the end of this decade, after which demand will begin to fall.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 17, 2022.

Companies in this story: (TSX:ENB, TSX:TRP)

Amanda Stephenson, The Canadian Press

US-owned firms appear to help Venezuela avoid US sanctions


The Bullenbaai oil terminal sits along the coast of the Dutch Caribbean island of Curacao near Willemstad, Dec. 24, 2016. The terminal is at the center of an effort by Venezuela to get around U.S. sanctions, the Associated Press has learned. 

(AP Photo/Dick Drayer) 

JOSHUA GOODMAN
Wed, November 16, 2022 

MIAMI (AP) — A company with an office in Houston and another owned by two American citizens appear to be helping Venezuela bypass U.S. sanctions and quietly transport millions in petroleum products aboard an Iranian-built tanker, The Associated Press has learned.

The sanctions evasion effort is centered around an idled refinery and adjacent oil terminal on the Dutch Caribbean island of Curacao that until 2019 was a major shipping hub for Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA.

On Sept. 28, the Togo-flagged tanker Colon discharged 600,000 barrels of fuel oil at the Bullenbaai terminal, which is operated by Curacao's state-owned refining company in partnership with a fledgling company, Caribbean Petroleum Refinery, owned by two Venezuelan American dual nationals.

The state-owned company issued a news release celebrating the Colon's arrival as a “historic moment” — saying it was the first delivery for the reactivated terminal, which is capable of storing up to 7 million barrels of oil products.

Although the release made no mention of the fuel oil's origin, the Iranian-built tanker for the past year has shuttled exclusively among ports in Venezuela. Ship tracking data show that two days prior to its arrival in Curacao, the Colon loaded its giant black-and-red hull at the port of Amuay, home to Venezuela's largest refinery.

The little-noticed oil shipment would appear to violate the spirit — if not strictly the law — of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela that have been aimed unsuccessfully since 2019 at forcing President Nicolás Maduro from power.

With Maduro's socialist government shunned as a financial pariah in the west, PDVSA has had to resort to ever-more complex transactions to move oil produced from the OPEC nation's massive petroleum reserves — the world's largest.

But until now, many of those transactions involved deeply discounted payments in cryptocurrencies by Russian oligarchs, shell companies in such places as Hong Kong and “ghost tankers” that turn off their mandatory transponders to avoid detection by U.S. authorities.

In contrast, Curacao, whose foreign relations are handled by the Netherlands, a staunch U.S. ally, has strictly adhered to U.S. sanctions, once even confiscating PDVSA's unsold inventories after its lease of the refinery expired in 2019 to pay American oil companies stiffed by Venezuela over the years.

Authorities in Curacao may be betting on lax enforcement by the Biden administration, said Marshall Billingslea, a former senior Treasury Department official who helped craft the current sanctions policy. During former President Donald Trump's administration, the U.S. froze the assets of more than 140 Maduro insiders and threatened retaliation against even non-American companies caught dealing in Venezuela's crude.

In contrast, President Joe Biden hasn't imposed any additional sanctions on Venezuela since taking office and has promised to roll back existing restrictions if Maduro takes meaningful steps toward holding free and fair elections.

“They’re flouting the sanctions because they know under this administration there are no consequences,” said Billingslea.

The U.S. Treasury Department, which enforces sanctions, didn't respond to an e-mail requesting comment.

Under U.S. sanctions, Americans and U.S. entities are barred from doing business with Venezuela's state-owned oil company. That ban becomes harder to enforce, however, the more times an oil cargo changes hands and is blended with other shipments, obscuring PDVSA's role as the ultimate beneficiary of any international sale.

Internal PDVSA documents show that the cargo transported by the Colon was sold in September by PDVSA to United Petroleo Corp. Little is known about United, which was registered in Panama last year. But it has emerged as PDVSA's second biggest client this year, with unpaid invoices for oil products sold on consignment of over $400 million, according to the documents, which someone knowledgeable about the transaction shared with the AP on the condition that the person remain anonymous.

PDVSA didn't respond to an e-mail requesting comment.

The Colon's cargo was discharged in a storage facility owned by Curacao's state-owned refinery in partnership with Caribbean Petroleum Refinery.

Caribbean Petroleum Refinery was registered in Curacao only in June and lists among its directors a Venezuelan American businessman, Raul Herrera. A related holding company bearing a similar name lists as its director Luis Giusti, another dual national who was CEO of PDVSA when Maduro's predecessor, Hugo Chavez, was elected in 1998.

When asked whether the shipment originated in Venezuela, Patrick Newton, director of Curacao's state-owned refinery, said his company is in full compliance with U.S. sanctions and its contracts require that its clients adhere to the same laws.

Meanwhile Herrera said his company's involvement in the transaction was limited to providing storage to the cargo's owner, which he identified as Knob Trading SA, a Panama-registered company that lists an office in Houston on its website.

“We are not operating Venezuelan products," said Herrera, who is also the president of a South Florida loan consulting firm. “We are not the owners or sellers of this cargo.”

Giusti didn't respond to text messages and an email seeking comment. Knob Trading didn't respond to repeated emails seeking comment and a person answering the phone number listed on its website hung up when contacted by the AP.

It's unknown where the crude went after it arrived in Curacao.

However, a month later, traders gingerly tried to offload the cargo, marketing it for re-export as 1 million barrels of “Bullenbaai Fuel Oil" — possibly a blend of different grades since Curacao doesn't produce oil. That's according to an Oct. 29 certificate of origin purportedly issued by Caribbean Petroleum Refinery. A copy of the certificate was provided to the AP by an oil trader who had been offered the cargo by a broker working with Knob. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being identified with a transaction in violation of U.S. sanctions.

The certificate was purportedly prepared by Frank Verhoets, who is identified as managing director of Caribbean Petroleum Refinery. However, Herrera said nobody by that name works at the company and called the document, in which Knob's name is scratched off, a clear fraud.

“Unfortunately in the industry, there's a lot of falsifications and misleading information,” he said.

___

Associated Press writer Derk Drayer in Willemstad, Curacao, contributed to this report.

___

Follow Goodman on Twitter: @APJoshGoodman

2 killed in second Kenya building collapse this week




Kenyan police attend the scene of a building collapse in Ruaka, on the outskirts of the capital Nairobi, Kenya Thursday, Nov. 17, 2022. The collapse of the building under construction is the second such collapse in a matter of days in Nairobi, where housing is in high demand and unscrupulous developers often bypass regulations. (AP Photo)

EVELYNE MUSAMBI
Thu, November 17, 2022 

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — A multi-story building under construction collapsed on a neighboring home in the outskirts of Kenyan capital Nairobi, killing two people on Thursday, authorities said.

Three other people have been rescued alive from the family home that was next to the collapsed building located in the Ruaka suburb.

The early morning collapse is the second such incident this week as construction authorities warn of unpermitted buildings coming up in the city and its outskirts.

On Tuesday, a multi-story building collapsed in the city and construction workers were trapped inside.

Three people were confirmed dead from that incident, and the owner of the building, who is to be arrested and charged, has been on the run.

Building collapses are common in Nairobi, where housing is in high demand and unscrupulous developers often bypass regulations.

After eight buildings collapsed and killed 15 people in Kenya in 2015, the presidency ordered an audit of all the country’s buildings to see if they were up to code. The National Construction Authority found that 58% of the buildings in Nairobi were unfit for habitation.

Research reveals plant roots change shape and branch out for water

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

 

VIDEO: VIDEO SHOWING THAT TOMATO ROOTS (WILD TYPE) DO NOT PRODUCE BRANCHES IN AIR OR WITHOUT WATER. HOWEVER, NOTABILIS MUTANT WHICH IS DEFICIENT IN HORMONE ABA CAN BRANCH OUT IN SOIL AIR SPACES. view more 

CREDIT: BRIAN ATKINSON, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

Researchers have discovered how plant roots adapt their shape to maximise their uptake of water, pausing branching when they lose contact with water and only resuming once they reconnect with moisture, ensuring they can survive even in the driest conditions.

Plant scientists from the University of Nottingham have discovered a novel water sensing mechanism that they have called ‘Hydro-Signalling’, which shows how hormone movement is linked with water fluxes. The findings have been published today in Science.

Water is the rate-limiting molecule for life on earth. The devastating impact of climate change is enhancing the effects of water stress on global agriculture. Climate change is causing rainfall patterns to become more erratic, impacting rain-fed crops in particular.

Roots play a critical role to reduce the impact of water stress on plants by adapting their shape (such as branching or growing deeper) to secure more water. Discovering how plant roots sense and adapt to water stress is vital importance for helping ‘future proof’ crops to enhance their climate resilience.

Using X-ray micro-CT imaging researchers were able to reveal that roots alter their shape in response to external moisture availability by linking the movement of water with plant hormone signals that control root branching. 

The study provides critical information about the key genes and processes controlling root branching in response to limited water availability, helping scientists design novel approaches to manipulate root architecture to enhance water capture and yield in crops.

Dr. Poonam Mehra, postdoctoral fellow, from the School of Biosciences is one of the lead authors and explains: “When roots are in contact with moisture, a key hormone signal (auxin) moves inwards with water, triggering new root branches. However, when roots lose contact with moisture, they rely on internal water sources that mobilises another hormone signal (ABA) outwards, which acts to block the inwards movement of the branching signal. This simple, yet elegant mechanism enables plant roots to fine tune their shape to local conditions and optimize foraging.”

Professor Malcolm Bennett, co-lead on the research adds: “Our plant research is vitally important for understanding how we can futureproof crops and find ways to ensure successful crop yields even in the most challenging climates. We are already experiencing a hotter climate and designing plants that can still access water in these conditions is vital and this research is an all important step in understanding how to do this”. He continued: “These new discoveries were only possible because of the cutting-edge tools and collaborative approaches of the authors, which involved an international team of scientists based in the UK, Belgium, Sweden, USA and Israel.’”

The research was funded by BBSRC, EMBO and ERC. 

---

JOURNAL

Science

DOI

10.1126/science.add3771 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Hydraulic flux responsive hormone redistribution determines root branching.

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Nov-2022

Offshore wind farms may harm seabirds, but scientists see potential for net positive impact

A new study presents a framework for assessing and mitigating the impacts of offshore wind energy development on marine birds

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA CRUZ

 

IMAGE: ALBATROSS SPECIES SUCH AS THE LAYSAN ALBATROSS FORAGE IN WATERS OFFSHORE, AND THEIR RANGES OVERLAP WITH AREAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT. DISPLACEMENT FROM FORAGING SITES AND DIRECT MORTALITY FROM COLLISIONS WITH THE BLADES OF WIND TURBINES COULD HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE POPULATIONS OF ALBATROSSES AND OTHER VULNERABLE SPECIES. view more 

CREDIT: PHOTO BY ASPEN ELLIS

The development of offshore wind energy is expanding globally, with the potential to be an important source of clean renewable energy. Yet offshore wind farms pose significant risks to seabirds and other marine wildlife.

A new study led by scientists at UC Santa Cruz outlines a framework for addressing the impacts of offshore wind farms on marine bird populations and highlights conservation strategies that could potentially more than offset those impacts.

“We all want wind energy, but we also want to make sure it can be sustainably produced,” said lead author Donald Croll, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UC Santa Cruz.

Coauthor Aspen Ellis, a doctoral student in Croll’s Conservation Action Lab, explained that funding from offshore wind energy development can be used to reduce other threats to seabird populations. This can be effective with seabirds because studies have shown significant increases in their populations after interventions such as removing invasive species from nesting sites.

“This is a case where we have the data and the knowledge to make it work,” Ellis said. “Seabirds breed in colonies, so their populations are concentrated there during the breeding season and conservation strategies can have a big impact. We have a suite of proven tools to increase seabird population sizes, as well as established methods that can predict the population-level impact of these different tools on each seabird species.”

Seabirds are already the most highly threatened group of birds. The potential impacts of offshore wind farms include displacement of birds from areas where they forage for food and direct mortality from collisions with the blades of wind turbines. Both displacement and mortality can have detrimental effects on the overall population of an affected species.

Croll and Ellis worked with an international team of experts on seabirds and wind energy to study these issues and how to address them. They came up with a comprehensive framework, published November 10 in Biological Conservation, for assessing and mitigating the impacts of offshore wind farms on marine birds.

While the impacts of land-based wind turbines on eagles and other raptors have been well documented, assessing the impact of offshore facilities on seabirds is more challenging.

“On land you can find carcasses under the turbines, but in the ocean they just disappear,” Croll said.

In the absence of effective monitoring techniques, collision risk models can still provide useful estimates of collision frequencies.

“We’ve been studying these species for years, so we have a fair amount of information from surveys and tracking studies about what species are out there and where they go,” Croll said. “We’ve also been developing population models that can be used to assess the impacts on seabird populations.”

The study outlined three steps for mitigating environmental impacts: avoid, minimize, and offset. While efforts can and should be made to avoid and reduce the impacts of wind energy development on marine birds as much as possible, the researchers concluded that eliminating impacts is impossible with avoidance and minimization approaches alone.

Offsetting the impacts (also called “compensatory mitigation”) offers the potential for wind energy development to have a net positive effect on seabird populations.

“It doesn’t have to be a choice between addressing climate change or protecting wildlife—it could be a win-win for both. That’s what we’re trying to do here,” Ellis said.

In addition to eliminating invasive species from islands where seabirds breed, researchers have also had success moving seabirds from existing colonies to other sites, either to establish new breeding colonies or to restore colonies that were extirpated in the past. Mitigation funding could also be used to implement strategies for reducing seabird bycatch in fisheries.

“These interventions can be expensive, and there’s a limit to the funding available from government agencies and nonprofits,” Croll said. “I’m hoping the funding from offshore wind energy development will increase the resources available for these interventions.”

The study presents a broad framework that can be applied globally for assessing and mitigating the impacts of offshore wind energy development. Extensive offshore wind farms have been developed in Europe and the United Kingdom. In the United States, offshore wind energy is starting to grow on the East Coast, but until recently it has not been feasible on the West Coast, where the continental shelf drops off quickly into deep water.

With the development of technologies for floating wind turbines, however, there is increasing interest on the West Coast. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has identified two areas on California’s coast for wind energy leases, one on the North Coast near Humboldt County and the other on the Central Coast near Morro Bay.

Ellis is currently applying the approach outlined in the study to evaluate potential wind energy developments on the West Coast, with support from NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries through a 2022 Nancy Foster Scholarship.

In addition to Croll and Ellis, the coauthors of the paper include scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, British Trust for Ornithology, Research and Technology Center (Kiel, Germany), Biodiversity Research Institute, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, NOAA Fisheries, American Bird Conservancy, National Ocean Service, Audubon Seabird Institute, Conservation Metrics, Waardenburg Ecology (Netherlands), UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Ecological Dynamics Group (Netherlands), Blue Point Conservation Science, Pacific Rim Conservation, and Nhydra Ecological (Canada).

This research was supported by BOEM through a grant to the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at UC Santa Barbara.

---

JOURNAL

Biological Conservation

DOI

10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109795 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Systematic review

ARTICLE TITLE

Framework for assessing and mitigating the impacts of offshore wind energy development on marine birds

Science misinformation on GMOs reaches quarter of a billion people, study finds

Peer-Reviewed Publication

BOYCE THOMPSON INSTITUTE

17 NOVEMBER 2022, ITHACA, NEW YORK: Science misinformation about genetically modified crops and foods had a potential global readership of over a quarter of a billion people, according to a new study published by the Alliance for Science, which combats anti-science misinformation on topics like climate, vaccines and GMOs.

The study assessed top English-language media from around the world, with stories published over a two-year period between January 2019 and January 2021. Articles were assessed for misinformation, defined as statements that disagreed with the scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering.

Overall, 9% (47) of the 535 relevant articles containing 'GMO'-related keywords contained misinformation. This false information was considered likely to have had a potential reach of 256 million people.

The problem is particularly acute in Africa, where one-fifth of media coverage of genetically modified foods contained misinformation. The corresponding figures for North America and Europe were 5% and 7%, respectively.

As well as regional tags, the articles were also subjected to sentiment analysis. While an overwhelming majority of articles were categorized as 'neutral,' the majority of misinformation was rated as 'negative' in tone. There were no articles containing misinformation with a positive tone towards GMOs.

The biggest category of misinformation concerned human health. This category includes articles containing claims that GMOs cause cancer or other health impacts without refutation, because such claims contradict a worldwide scientific consensus that food from genetically engineered crops is as safe as food from non-genetically engineered crops. Misinformation on GMOs and human health also had the highest readership, achieving a potential reach of 139 million people.

The study was conducted in partnership with Cision Media, using its NextGen database of global media. Sentiment analysis and categorization was performed manually, not by machine.

The paper, which is published in the peer-reviewed journal GM Crops & Food, is titled "Misinformation in the media: global coverage of GMOs 2019-2021." The lead author is Mark Lynas, climate and research lead at the Alliance for Science, which is based at the Boyce Thompson Institute in Ithaca, New York.

Lynas has previously published work with the Alliance for Science quantifying the scientific consensus on climate change, and examining media misinformation both on COVID-19 and vaccines. This new paper is thought to be the first to quantify the extent of GMO-related misinformation in the world's media based on a comprehensive dataset.

On the issue of GMO misinformation, Lynas said: "Our results show that misinformation about GMOs is still a huge problem, and that hundreds of millions of people are being given false information that contradicts the scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering. Make no mistake: misinformation about GMOs can be as harmful to society as misinformation on vaccines or climate change. The media must do better, and stop publishing false claims on this subject spread by anti-science activists."

Dr Sheila Ochugboju, executive director the Alliance for Science, added: "What is most worrying is that the problem of misinformation on GMOs is particularly acute in Africa, where it is harming the livelihoods of smallholder farmers by preventing them from accessing new crop varieties that are resistant to pests and to drought caused by climate change."

She added: "It is vital that the benefits of scientific innovation are not denied to people in the Global South," and vowed that the Alliance for Science will continue to combat misinformation on this subject and others via its Nairobi-based Global South Hub, and by working with partners including the Open Forum for Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB).

About Boyce Thompson Institute:

Opened in 1924, Boyce Thompson Institute is a premier life sciences research institution located in Ithaca, New York. BTI scientists conduct investigations into fundamental plant and life sciences research with the goals of increasing food security, improving environmental sustainability in agriculture, and making basic discoveries that will enhance human health. Throughout this work, BTI is committed to inspiring and educating students and to providing advanced training for the next generation of scientists. BTI is an independent nonprofit research institute that is also affiliated with Cornell University. For more information, please visit BTIscience.org.

###

---

JOURNAL

GM Crops & Food

DOI

10.1080/21645698.2022.2140568 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Misinformation in the media: global coverage of GMOs 2019-2021.

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

17-Nov-2022

COI STATEMENT

The Alliance for Science is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A list of other donors can be found at https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/about/funders. Cision, Inc. is a company that performs media analysis and provides other communications services for paying clients across a variety of sectors, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This study contains the authors’ objective analysis and may not reflect the views or attitudes of Cision or Cision’s clients. No other competing interests are declared by the authors.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news relea