86% of Canadians live in areas where air pollution exceeds WHO guidelines: researchers

By Leslie Young Global News
Posted October 7, 2021 

WATCH: The majority of Canadians live in parts of the country where air pollution exceeds new guidelines set by the World Health Organization, and this could damage their health, researchers say. Jamie Maraucher reports.


The majority of Canadians live in parts of the country where air pollution exceeds new guidelines set by the World Health Organization, and this could damage their health, researchers say.

According to researchers at CANUE – the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium – around 86 per cent of Canadians live in areas where airborne fine particulate matter levels exceed the WHO guidelines that were issued in late September.

Around 56 per cent of people live in areas where the levels of nitrogen dioxide exceed the new guidelines, said Jeff Brook, an assistant professor in public health and chemical engineering and applied chemistry at the University of Toronto who works with CANUE.

READ MORE: WHO says new lower air pollution guidelines could save millions of lives

The WHO’s new guidelines recommend an annual average concentration of PM2.5 of five micrograms per cubic meter of air. PM2.5 refers to airborne particles so tiny that they can penetrate the lungs when you breathe and enter the bloodstream.

While most of Canada was well under the old WHO guideline on fine particulate matter, much of urban Canada exceeds this new benchmark, as do parts of Western Canada with regular exposure to wildfire smoke, CANUE’s research shows.

“We should care because we can do something about it,” said Brook, who is also a former air quality scientist for Environment Canada. “It is contributing to the costs of health care. It is affecting the quality of people’s lives.”

MAP: Areas exceeding WHO air quality guidelines on fine particulate matter

View image in full screen

A map showing areas that exceed WHO guidelines on fine particulate matter. Based on 2018 Annual Average PM2.5 data from the Atmospheric Composition Analysis Group, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University; Statistics Canada 2016 Dissemination Block file and Population Ecumene file. Map prepared by the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium (https://canue.ca/)

THE DARKEST AREAS ARE IN OIL COUNTRY ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN

IN BC THE AREA IS WHERE COAL MINING MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL IS

IN EASTERN CANADA THE POLLUTION IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL HEARTLAND AND FOLLOWS REFINERIES AND PIPELINES

Health Canada estimates that air pollution contributes to 15,300 deaths per year in Canada, with many more people losing days suffering from asthma and acute respiratory symptoms as a result of pollution. This is a little more than the number of Canadians who die annually in accidents like car crashes, according to Statistics Canada

READ MORE: Live near a major road? You’re breathing in more polluted air, according to a new study

Other studies come to similar conclusions as the research from CANUE. A recent report from the B.C. Lung Association found that many B.C. municipalities, including Victoria, much of the Lower Mainland and especially communities in the Interior like Grand Forks, Castlegar and Nelson, exceeded these levels.

In Ontario, according to a 2018 government report on annual trends in air quality – the most recent year available – air pollution across Toronto also exceeded these recommended levels, with downtown Toronto recording more than double the new WHO guideline.

2:31Concerns about the adverse effects of B.C. wildfire smoke pollution – Jul 26, 2021

“Our most polluted part of Canada would be the Windsor, Sarnia towards Montreal, Quebec City (corridor),” Brook said. “But increasingly, our most serious air pollution problems in Canada are where there’s forest fires.”

Air pollution and health

The WHO’s new guidelines on PM2.5 and NO2 are significantly lower than the old ones. They are not enforceable in any way – but are merely a guide to help countries move toward cleaner air, said Michael Brauer, a professor in the school of population and public health at UBC who worked on the guidelines.

“The idea behind these guidelines is that they’re entirely health-based,” he said. “This is a five-year process and really pretty intense and detailed evaluation of the available evidence of the health impacts of air pollution.”

2:50 New WHO air-quality guidelines aim to cut deaths linked to fossil fuels

 – Sep 22, 2021

While Canada has much cleaner air than many other parts of the world, like India where annual average PM2.5 levels are 83 micrograms per cubic meter, that doesn’t mean Canadians don’t experience health impacts as a result of air pollution, Brauer said.

“Especially for particulate matter, for PM2.5, we see more people dying. So it’s really as simple as that. It’s the ultimate health impact,” Brauer said.

READ MORE: Travelling to a polluted city can hurt your lungs, study finds

While air pollution might not be written on a death certificate, Brauer said, it’s been linked to lung disease, heart disease, asthma, and heart attacks and emerging evidence also suggests a link to type 2 diabetes and neurodegenerative conditions, according to the WHO.

Outdoor air pollution has long been linked to reduced lung function in otherwise healthy people, said Dr. Erika Penz, a respirologist and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan. But what really concerns her as a respirologist is the impact on people with existing lung conditions, like asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

“We’ve actually seen even higher death rates in our patients with lung disease when faced with higher levels of air pollution,” she said.

1:40 Smoke-filled summers the norm for Alberta: wildfire expert – Aug 17, 2021

During wildfire season in Saskatchewan, she said, “many, many, many of my patients call my office because they’re having troubles with breathing. Some of them show up in the emergency department, unfortunately, because they just can’t get control of their symptoms.

“And many of my patients, fortunately, just know that they’re not leaving the house for the period of time that the air quality is bad. And so they keep their windows closed and they don’t go out in order to protect themselves.”

“I think many people could appreciate if you’re in very good health, you’re exposed to air pollution, you may develop a cough or slight difficulty breathing for a day or two, for example, in a wildfire smoke event,” Brauer said. “But over the course of a lifetime, these repeated insults really lead to quite severe impacts in combination with other things.”

3:39 Health Matters: New global air pollution and health impact study – Jun 15, 2021

Canada’s wildfire seasons are likely to get worse, B.C. Centre for Disease Control researcher Sarah Henderson told Global News this summer. “All of the research suggests that we will see increasingly severe and prolonged wildfire seasons, and that means increasingly severe long smoke exposures,” she said.

READ MORE: The particles, gases and organisms in wildfire smoke — and what they mean for your health

Reducing air pollution should be a priority for governments, Penz said, and she predicts that Canada will see increasing rates of health issues linked to pollution in the years to come.

“From a just a patient level, it makes sense to do that to improve the overall health of our populations, to prevent the issues that we see in our hospitals,” she said. “These patients come in and require care and some of them don’t have good outcomes, they end up even dying from these diseases.”

While it’s hard to stop pollution from wildfires, Canada can also work on reducing pollution from traffic and other urban sources, Brook said. “Every improvement and exposure reduction is a benefit,” he said.

This might be through slowly introducing regulations on cars, limiting truck traffic in cities, or limiting the use of indoor fireplaces in urban areas, Brauer said.

“If we lower air pollution, everybody wins,” he said. “Just from a health perspective, it’s one of the most efficient ways we can actually improve the health of the population.”

© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Sea-level rise causing frozen grounds along Arctic coastlines to thaw, study suggests

By Aya Al-Hakim Global News
Posted October 7, 2021 

The Arctic sea ice has suffered devastating loss and has shrunk to its second lowest on record. Melting sea ice is just one of many signs of a warming climate in the North. Emanuela Campanella explains how climate change is rapidly transforming the Arctic Circle. – Sep 22, 2020


In a new study, researchers at Dalhousie University have found that sea-level rise is causing permafrost along Arctic coastlines “to thaw and retreat,” threatening northern ecosystems.

Permafrost, which is any ground that remains completely frozen — 0 C or colder — for at least two years straight, plays an important role in stabilizing coastlines.

According to NASA, these permanently frozen grounds are most common in regions with high mountains and in Earth’s higher latitudes — near the North a

READ MORE: 300 million people currently live in areas threatened by rising sea levels, study finds

They help regulate groundwater flow and lock carbon and greenhouse gases in the sediment.

“Sea-level rise is causing saltwater to move into terrestrial environments and freshwater reservoirs along coastlines around the world — a concerning phenomenon that has been studied extensively,” Alison Auld, the senior research reporter, said in a release.

“Little is known, however, about how this saltwater intrusion affects high-latitude permafrost environments like the Arctic.”

By studying how sea-level rise affects these environments, researchers will gain a better understanding of how climate change is impacting Arctic ecosystems and communities.

Julia Guimond.

Julia Guimond, a National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellow in Dal’s department of civil and resource engineering and lead author of the paper, said permafrost thaw may have potential implications for coastal infrastructure.

“The presence of permafrost can impact the stability of the land. And so … this loss of permafrost can trigger fast slumps or increased erosion in these areas that are already experiencing really rapid erosion,” said Guimond.

“So just heightening the vulnerability of coastal communities, coastal infrastructure that’s now on land, that’s not held stable by permafrost.”

In addition, she explained that saltwater intrusion triggering permafrost thaw can also have implications for global warming.

“Permafrost literally holds tons of carbon in the sediments. And so any time you find another driver of permafrost thaw, which we’re showing that sea-level rise can trigger thaw, you get the release of carbon into the environment,” Guimond said.

Despite these concerning implications, Guimond said she’s generally an optimistic person.

“Being in it every day and seeing the science that happens and the brilliance of colleagues and the creativity, I have to have hope.”

Guimond said what’s worrisome is the “feedback,” which is the effect that change in one part of an ecosystem has on another, that researchers don’t fully understand yet.

READ MORE: ‘Historic’ Halifax seawall being redeveloped as municipality seeks to reduce impact of climate change

“When you think about a changing climate, what we’ve shown in this study is that here is just yet another potential feedback where you have sea-level rise driving permafrost thaw,” she said.

So her hope is to draw attention to these dynamic coastal systems.

“The natural world is filled with so many feedbacks that have potential potentially large implications for global climate and sort of the trajectory that we’re facing in the coming years.”

You can read the full study online.

Guimond said that “any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the study or in this interview are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.”

NUKE NEWZ

New Brunswick fast reactor operational 'within the decade'

07 October 2021

A 2029 start-up for an ARC-100 advanced small modular reactor in New Brunswick is an "aggressive" but achievable target, the CEO of ARC Clean Energy Canada said yesterday. Bill Labbe was speaking at an event hosted by the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries (OCNI), held as the company prepares to begin the second phase of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Vendor Design Review (VDR) process.

ARC, along with NB Power and Moltex Energy, is part of an SMR vendor 'cluster' established in New Brunswick in 2020 with the aim of establishing an SMR supply chain in the province and deploying SMRs at NB Power's existing Point Lepreau site, which is currently home to a 660 MWe (net) Candu 6 reactor. The Government of New Brunswick earlier this year announced CAD20 million (USD16 million) in funding towards the advancement of the ARC-100 sodium-cooled fast reactor. The Government of Canada has also this year announced funding to advance the design of Moltex's Stable Salt Reactor - Wasteburner and WAste to Stable Salt (WATSS) facility, and has also announced funding for NB Power to prepare the Point Lepreau site for SMR deployment and demonstration, and to the University of New Brunswick to expand its capacity to support SMR technology development.

Also speaking at the OCNI event were Andy Hayward, director of advanced reactor development at NB Power, and Bill Cooper, vice-president of engineering at ARC, as well as New Brunswick Minister of Natural Resources and Energy Development Mike Holland. The event was chaired by OCNI President and CEO Ron Oberth.

The ARC-100 is a 100 MWe fast reactor that leverages proven technology developed at the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR II) sodium-cooled fast-reactor, which was developed at the US government's Argonne National Laboratory where it operated successfully for thirty years. The inherent safety characteristics and passive safety features of this design have already been proven, Hayward said. Currently, activities are focusing on preliminary design work, the VDR process, and development and preparation work at Point Lepreau, as well as progressing supply chain activities and First Nations and public engagement.

The timeline for ARC-100 commercialisation has been "accelerating", Labbe said. The first - Scoping - phase was completed in 2019; the second phase - Preliminary Design, which includes the second VDR phase, the completion of preliminary design work, validation of cost estimates and integrated schedule, as well as scoping fuel supply and manufacturing capabilities - is now under way and is expected to be completed by the end of 2023. Phase 3, which will include completion of the detailed engineering, procurement orders, construction permit licensing and approval, site preparation work and the execution of a construction contract, is scheduled to run until 2026.

The final - deployment - phase will run from 2027-2030, according to the timeline, and the company expects the first core to be delivered on site by the end of 2028, Labbe said. "I haven't seen anything in our schedule yet that moves us beyond [a 2029 operational date]", he added. "It's really coming down to a resource constraint at this point. Those are the types of things that we can manage."

"The other part is the regulatory approval. We need to have good quality documents, good discussions, good interface with regulatory agencies, and we need to make sure we provide them with everything that they need so that they can make decisions in a timely manner. That's a piece that's a little bit out of our control, but we can certainly set that stage very well with what we deliver, and that will enable our schedule to progress."

"We are in an envious position in New Brunswick, with the support of the New Brunswick government, a utility that has a long history of operating nuclear power plants, and a technology that's very mature and well proven," Cooper said. "This is an exciting time for SMRs and we don't have any obstacles in front of us that we can't get through to have one of these units up and running within the decade."

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

  

Could Thorium Power the Next Generation of Nuclear Reactors?

By: Jesslyn Shields | Oct 6, 2021

Thorium pellets used inside the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
nuclear research reactor in Mumbai, India. 

PALLAVA BAGLA/CORBIS/GETTY IMAGES

As climate change makes the planet less pleasant to live on, nuclear power is getting more attention. Solar and wind energy can help cut greenhouse gas emissions, but if a solution can be found to climate change, nuclear power is probably going to be part of it.

But although nuclear power is carbon-free, it's risky. For starters, disposing of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants presents an insoluble problem — what to do with such dangerous byproducts? Also, what happens if the core melts down and creates a deadly environmental catastrophe, as happened in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011? There are other concerns as well, but there are a lot of reasons to keep plugging away at making nuclear power safer.

Nuclear reactors are run by fission, a nuclear chain reaction in which atoms split to produce energy (or in the case of nuclear bombs, a massive explosion).

"Approximately 450 nuclear reactors are in operation worldwide, and they all need fuel," says Steve Krahn, a professor in the department of civil & environmental engineering at Vanderbilt University, in an email. "For the most part, these reactors operate on Uranium-235 (U-235), and the nations that partially recycle the fuel — France, Russia and a few other countries — mix in a little recycled Plutonium-239 to make what's called mixed-oxide fuel."

Plutonium is a byproduct of used fuel from a nuclear reactor; it's highly toxic and its radioactivity doesn't drop very quickly — it takes tens of thousands of years for it to achieve safe levels of radiation, whereas thorium breaks down to a safe level in around 500 years.

German physical chemist Otto Hahn was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1944 for his discovery, with Fritz Strassmann and Lise Meitner, of the nuclear fission of uranium and thorium.
STF/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

What Is Thorium?

Some scientists think the element thorium is the answer to our nuclear problems. Thorium is a slightly radioactive, relatively abundant metal — about as abundant as tin and more abundant than uranium. It's also widespread, with particular concentrations in India, Turkey, Brazil, the United States and Egypt.

Thorium isn't a fuel like uranium. The difference is that uranium is fissile, meaning that it produces a runaway chain reaction if you can get enough uranium in one spot at one time. Thorium, on the other hand, is nonfissile or "fertile," meaning you have to bombard the thorium with neutrons — essentially jump-start it with a small amount of radioactive material like uranium — so it can transmute into a uranium isotope (U-233/Th-232) for creating power.

Thorium Pros and Cons

Thorium was used in a lot of early nuclear physics experiments — Marie Curie and Ernest Rutherford worked with it. Uranium became more heavily associated with the nuclear process during World War II, because uranium is better for making bombs, but for power generation, thorium has some real benefits over uranium. Thorium is more efficient than uranium, and its reactors may be less likely to melt down because they operate at lower pressures. In addition, less plutonium is produced during reactor operation, and some scientists argue thorium reactors could destroy the tons of dangerous plutonium waste that have been created and stockpiled since the 1950s. Not only that, thorium is thought to be nearly proliferation-proof, since plutonium can't be separated out of the waste products and used to make bombs.

There are a few downsides to thorium, however. One is that, although thorium and its waste products are dangerous for hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years compared with uranium or plutonium, thorium is actually more dangerously radioactive in the short term. For that reason, thorium can be a bit harder to work with, and it's trickier to contain it. It is also more difficult to prepare than uranium rods: According to Krahn, if we are going to power our planet using a thorium fuel cycle, sufficient U-233 must be produced to fuel the initial reactors.

"Methods to chemically process Th-232 and U-233 are fairly well established; however, facilities to accomplish such chemical processing would need to be constructed," says Krahn.

Using Thorium for Energy

There are several ways thorium could be applied to energy production. One way is to use solid thorium fuel in a conventional water-cooled reactor, similar to modern uranium-based power plants. Another prospect that has been exciting to scientists and nuclear power advocates is the molten salt reactor. In these plants, fuel is dissolved in a vat of liquid salt. The salts have a high boiling point, so even huge temperature spikes will not lead to explosions. In addition, molten salt reactors don't require a lot of cooling so they don't need a huge amount of water to operate. For that reason, a thorium-powered nuclear reactor is being tested in the Gobi Desert in China.
Now That's Interesting

Thorium was discovered by Jons Jakob Berzelius in 1828, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder.

Hundreds of giant sequoia trees may have been killed by California wildfires: official

By Robert Jablon The Associated Press
Posted October 7, 2021 

Northern California wildfires may have killed hundreds of giant sequoias as they swept through groves of the majestic monarchs in the Sierra Nevada, an official said Wednesday.

“It’s heartbreaking,” said Christy Brigham, head of resource management and science for Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks.

The lightning-caused KNP Complex that erupted on Sept. 9 has burned into 15 giant sequoia groves in the park, Brigham said.

Most saw low- to medium-intensity fire behavior that the sequoias have evolved to survive, Brigham said.

However, it appeared that two groves — including one with 5,000 trees — were seared by high-intensity fire that can send up 100-foot (30-meter) flames capable of burning the canopies of the towering trees.

That leaves the monarchs at risk of going up “like a horrible Roman candle,” Brigham said.

Two burned trees fell in Giant Forest, which is home to about 2,000 sequoias, including the General Sherman Tree, which is considered the world’s largest by volume. However, the most notable trees survived and Brigham said the grove appeared to be mostly intact.

Firefighters have taken extraordinary measures to protect the sequoias by wrapping fire-resistant material around the bases of some giants, raking and clearing vegetation around them, installing sprinklers and dousing some with water or fire retardant gel.

However, the full extent of the damage won’t be known for months, Brigham said. Firefighters are still occupied protecting trees, homes and lives or can’t safely reach steep, remote groves that lack roads or even trails, she said.

The KNP Complex was only 11% contained Thursday after burning 134 square miles (347 square kilometers) of forest. Cooler weather has helped slow the flames and the area could see some slight rain on Friday, forecasters said.

To the south, the Windy Fire had burned at least 74 sequoias, Garrett Dickman told the Los Angeles Times. The wildfire botanist has recorded damage as part of a sequoia task force preparing and assessing trees in the fire zone.

In one grove, Dickman counted 29 sequoias that were “just incinerated,” he told CNN.

“There were four of those that had burned so hot that they’d fallen over,” he said.

The 152-acre (395-square-kilometer) fire was 75 per cent contained.

Giant sequoias grow naturally only in the Sierra Nevada. The world’s most massive trees, they can soar to more than 250 feet (76 meters) with trunks 20 feet (6 meters) in diameter and live for thousands of years.
The trees need low-intensity fire to reproduce. Flames thin out the forest of competitors such as cedars, clearing away shade, and the heat causes the seedlings to open. But fire officials say recent blazes have been much more intense because fire suppression efforts left more undergrowth that’s turned bone dry from drought, driven by climate change.

Last year’s Castle Fire in and around Sequoia National Park is estimated to have killed as many as 10,600 giant sequoias, or 10% to 14% of the entire population.

While some groves may have received only patchy fire damage and will recover, every burned giant sequoia is a loss, Brigham said.

“When you stand by a tree that big and that old, 1,000 to 2,000 years old, the loss of any is a heartbreak,” she said. “You can’t get it back, it’s irreplaceable.”

California fires have burned more than 3,000 square miles (7,800 square kilometers) so far in 2021, destroying more than 3,000 homes, commercial properties and other structures. Hotter and drier weather coupled with decades of fire suppression have contributed to an increase in the number of acres burned by wildfires, fire scientists say. And the problem is exacerbated by a more than 20-year Western megadrought that studies link to human-caused climate change.

 #ECOCIDE  

UPDATES

Report: SoCal Pipeline Operator Took Hours to React to Spill Alarm

 

The location of the suspected breach in the San Pedro Bay Pipeline (USCG)

PUBLISHED OCT 6, 2021 2:52 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

In an enforcement order released Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Transportation's pipeline regulator said that the operator of the ruptured crude line off Orange County had indication of a breach several hours before it shut down the line or reported a potential spill. 

At about 0230 hours on Saturday morning, the control room personnel for operator Beta Offshore received a low pressure alarm on the San Pedro Bay Pipeline, an indication of a potential breach. According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Beta Offshore reported that the line was shut down at 0601 - more than three hours after the alarm.

Beta Offshore did not report the possibility of a breach to the U.S. Coast Guard's National Response Center (NRC) until 0907, more than six hours after the first alarm.

This timeline does not appear to be consistent with previous public statements from Beta's parent company, Amplify Energy; at a press conference Tuesday, Amplify CEO Martyn Willsher told the OC Register that his firm became aware of the potential leak at about 0800 - more than five hours after the alarm and two hours after his firm had shut down the pipeline.

In its order to Beta Offshore, PHMSA did not address the earliest spill reports sent to NRC, which were submitted by a third-party vessel on Friday evening - long before the first alarm sounded.

An ROV and dive inspection of the full 18-mile length of the San Pedro Bay Pipeline was completed earlier this week. One section of the line measuring 4,000 feet long has been displaced horizontally by about 100 feet, and a portion of this segment has a breach of about 13 inches across. According to PHMSA, the damaged section is located about five miles offshore in about 100 feet of water, within reach for commercial divers.

The unified command for the response believes that the damage is not consistent with normal wear and tear: the steel pipeline is 16 inches in diameter, half an inch thick and coated in concrete, and it is not likely to move on its own. Investigators are considering multiple potential causes, but one possibility is an anchor strike from one of the dozens of vessels waiting in San Pedro Bay. The bay's anchorage is unusually busy due to unprecedented congestion at the twin ports of LA / Long Beach. 

As a precautionary measure, PHMSA has ordered Beta Offshore to keep the pipeline shut down until it authorizes startup. It also ordered a complete test procedure for the full length of the pipeline, including metallurgical testing on the failed pipe wall section. Beta must also review and assess its emergency response and public-notification procedures.

'Protect Our Coast,' Wildlife Defenders Say

 as California Oil Spill Puts Species at Risk

"Once inundated with oil, it is impossible to fully remove oil from these wetlands," said marine conservation group Oceana.

The National Audubon Society has designated Pacific waters off Southern California's coast as a crucial habitat for elegant terns, and ocean conservation group Oceana said Thursday that this week's oil spill in Huntington Beach is likely to harm the species. (Photo: Mark Watson/Flickr/cc)

JULIA CONLEY

October 7, 2021

Marine conservation group Oceana on Thursday called on the federal government to protect wildlife throughout the United States' coastal areas as experts assess the long-term damage done to dozens of species by a crude oil spill near Huntington Beach, California last week.

An analysis released by Oceana showed that numerous vulnerable and endangered species have been put at risk following one of the largest spills in the state's recent history, which sent at least 126,000 gallons of crude oil into Pacific waters and nearby wetlands last Saturday—the result of a ruptured pipeline.

"Wildlife and coastal economies cannot continue to be jeopardized by dangerous offshore drilling," said Geoff Shester, California campaign director and senior scientist at Oceana. "It's past time to permanently protect our coast from offshore drilling."




The Eastern North Pacific's remaining population of endangered blue whales use the area for feeding on krill, which may now be threatened with a massive die-off due to the oil spill, Oceana reported. The spill may also leave gray whales unable to migrate through the area as they do every year.

"Wildlife and coastal economies cannot continue to be jeopardized by dangerous offshore drilling. It's past time to permanently protect our coast."

Elegant terns, a bird species considered vulnerable due to the extremely limited number of places where it nests, could lose "one of their only remaining nesting sites left in the world," Oceana said, impacting their feeding areas.

"Toxic oil spills don't discriminate in polluting ocean ecosystems. From the seafloor to the ocean's surface, the waters off Southern California contain some of the most endangered species and fragile habitats on the West Coast," said Shester. "While the extent of the damage to oiled habitats and wildlife and the economic implications of closed fisheries are still unfolding, we hope that this analysis will help inform response efforts and that it will be considered when ensuring the responsible party is held fully liable for damages that could have been prevented."

Other seabirds who make their habitats in coastal wetlands—including brown pelicans, black skimmers, and least terns—may also suffer lasting effects of the spill even after cleanup crews do what they can to mitigate the damage.

"Once inundated with oil, it is impossible to fully remove oil from these wetlands, which are critical stops along the Pacific Flyway for dozens of species of migratory birds," said Oceana.

The group's warning was echoed by experts including Steve Murawski, a marine ecologist at the University of South Florida.

“Once the oil is in the marsh and it gets down below the level of the sediments, it is there pretty much forever," Murawski told The Guardian Thursday.

Along with bird and marine species commonly known to the public, Oceana identified deep-sea wildlife and sectors of the economy that are expected to suffer the effects of the spill, including:

At least 15 types of deep-water coral, which provide key nursery grounds for recreational and commercial fish species and which can be smothered and killed by spilled oil;

Rocky reefs and kelp forests, which have been federally designated "habitat areas of particular concern" because of their sensitivity, rarity, and ecological importance for a diversity of Southern California fish and invertebrates; and

Commercial fisheries including market squid, tunas, swordfish, spiny lobster, spot prawn, and red sea urchin, which were valued at $27.2 million in 2020 and have a full value "several times greater" when factoring employment, processing, and seafood products.

"We need the federal government to stop selling off our oceans for offshore drilling and Congress can make sure that happen in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently being negotiated," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana. "We know that oil is toxic. We know we shouldn't eat it, breathe it, or swim in it. But for marine wildlife, that's not an option when oil spills occur."

The group found that an end to all new leasing off California's coast would protect 654,000 jobs threatened by oil spills and over $50 billion in gross domestic product for the state, as well as prevent more than 19 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and more than $720 billion in damages to people, property, and the environment.

"It's time to permanently protect our oceans from any more offshore oil and gas leasing," Hoskins said.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Analysis: Even Before Orange County Leak, California Pipeline Incidents Caused $1.2 Billion In Damages




PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Thursday October 7, 2021
Center for Biological Diversity

Video Maps Nearly 1,400 Pipeline Leaks, Spills, Other Problems Since 1986

WASHINGTON -
As Orange County beaches suffer a massive oil spill reportedly caused by an undersea pipeline linked to offshore drilling rigs, a new analysis reveals a troubling history of pipeline accidents in California.

Released today by the Center for Biological Diversity, the analysis found that since 1986, nearly 1,400 oil and gas pipeline leaks, spills and other incidents in the Golden State have caused at least $1.2 billion in damages, as well as 230 injuries and 53 deaths.

A new time-lapse video informed by the analysis maps every significant pipeline incident in California — along with their financial costs and toll in injuries and deaths — from 1986 to July of 2021. On average California has suffered 40 significant pipeline incidents a year, according to the federal data.

“The Orange County spill is a wake-up call on the risks of oil and gas pipelines, but these things have been wreaking havoc in California for decades,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director for the Center. “The leaks and spills and pollution go on year after year. These deadly and costly incidents will continue until we put an end to this dirty extraction business.”

Today’s analysis focuses on pipeline incidents since 1986, including spills, leaks, ruptures and explosions. It’s based on records from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which maintains a database of all U.S. pipeline incidents classified as “significant” — those resulting in death or injury, damages more than $50,000, more than five barrels of highly volatile substances or 50 barrels of other liquid released, or where the liquid exploded or burned.

Hundreds of miles of pipelines run through California’s coastal areas. They transport oil and gas from drilling and fracking.

Today’s analysis does not include the damage caused by the Orange County leak, which investigators believe came from a breach in an undersea pipeline linked to the Elly platform, an offshore rig built in 1980. The leak released an estimated 144,000 gallons of oil into the ocean, killing birds, fouling beaches and saturating the Talbert Marsh ecological reserve.

“Whether oil and gas pipelines are in the ocean or on land, they’re basically time bombs,” said Monsell. “This video shows how much damage they do to our coastlines and in our communities. That’s one more reason why President Biden and Gov. Newsom must stop approving new fossil fuel projects and wind down existing drilling.”




At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.

Orange County oil spill leaves many clues, dead ends and mysteries, but few answers

by Thomas Curwen, Anita Chabria and Laura J. Nelson

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Nearly a week after a 13-inch tear in an undersea pipeline resulted in a massive oil spill off the Southern California coast, the clues keep piling up, but the mystery of what caused the rupture and who is ultimately responsible remains unsolved.

Like other investigations into mechanical failures that have led to catastrophic results, an understanding of the chain of events that led to the spill is playing out like twist-filled thriller. Leads are being followed. Some have already resulted in dead ends; others are still unfolding.

It's still unclear how the pipeline ruptured, when the damage was done and what could have prevented it. Even the exact location of the pipe running along Orange County coast is also the subject of some doubt.

"The frustrating part is that the information is coming at investigators at the speed of light, and they can be inundated with irrelevant noise," said Richard Kuprewicz, who by his account has investigated hundreds of pipeline incidents over the course of 20 years. "They have to filter that out of the way."

As containment and mitigation efforts advance, nearly a dozen government agencies have become involved in an investigation that has already taken them to the Port of Oakland, where authorities spoke Wednesday to the operators of a German container ship that had been on-site at the time of the spill. The ship was allowed to continue on with its journey, however, and the ship's owners said the vessel was no longer under scrutiny.

Kuprewicz warns that answers may take time.

"We should have an answer in a couple of months, which is about how long it takes to do the forensic analysis," he said, which should include removing the damaged pipe from nearly 100 feet of water. "They should be able to determine with a high degree of confidence what the most likely failure mechanism was."

Of course, determining the cause of the rupture will be easier than finding out who is responsible. "It will take more time to get to the who, than to the why," Kuprewicz said. "The why follows the science. The who follows the rule of law."

As of Thursday, the most probable suspect continued to be a shipping vessel that might have hit and possibly snagged the pipeline in the process of anchoring. But identifying that ship will require establishing when the pipeline was damaged. Complicating that work is the possibility that damage took place months before the pipe cracked open.

The answer to these questions is critical in not only preventing a similar spill from taking place but also in determining liability, which could possibly extend to criminal negligence.

Already a performer on the Huntington Beach boardwalk has sued the pipeline operator in federal court, claiming that the spill will harm his business and has exposed him to hazardous chemicals. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status.

On Thursday, another lawsuit filed in federal court on behalf of Laguna Beach shoreline property owners also seek class-action certification and damages for loss of enjoyment, potential lowered property values and diminished rental income.

Rebecca Ore, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach, was reluctant to give an estimated cost of the cleanup. "We're still in the early phases of this, and responses can be a long-term effort," she said.

But Kuprewicz anticipates this effort could "easily go into the hundreds of millions."

"Oil spills don't tend to be cheap affairs, and this is a high-profile oil spill with a high-profile investigation," he said. "I've seen minor pipeline failures that have escalated into billions of dollars."

Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley said there is a federal liability trust that will be used to reimburse public agencies for the cost of the cleanup. It is not clear how much money is in the trust.

"We are tracking every single minute, every single supply, piece of equipment," Foley said. "All the public agencies are working towards submitting reimbursements. I don't have any reason to believe we won't get reimbursed."

Seven days into the investigation, what is known is clear: The pipeline, which is 16 inches in diameter, is nearly 18 miles long, and connects three offshore oil platforms—Ellen, Elly and Eureka—with an onshore processing plant in the Port of Long Beach.

The infrastructure is owned by Amplify Energy Corp., a publicly owned energy company headquartered in Houston. Its portfolio, according to its website, includes "mature, legacy oil and natural gas fields."

Amplify has owned the property for nine years. It was initially developed by Shell Oil Co. in the late 1970s and went into production in January 1981. It is one of more than two dozen offshore oil platforms that are a familiar sight off the coast.

Late in the afternoon of Friday, Oct. 1, Newport Beach resident Jolie Sheppick noticed a smell, "like when they resurfaced the streets in the area and had a spill."

But even as Sheppick and others began calling authorities, workers in Platform Elly's control room were unaware of a problem in the pipeline until 2:30 a.m. Saturday when, according to federal regulators, they received an alert indicating low pressure.

Low-pressure alerts do not always mean a release in the line, and "it isn't reasonable to expect an operator to shut down a line whenever they hear a low-pressure alarm," said Kuprewicz, but "something doesn't look right here."

In comments this week, Martyn Willsher, who runs Amplify Energy, has not explained what warnings his company may have received or what initial actions they took.

He has said, however, that a little after 8 a.m. Saturday, workers performing a line inspection noticed a sheen in the water and "instantly" radioed back to the offshore platforms, where workers launched an incident response plan. The offshore platforms and pumping operations were "shut down immediately thereafter."

About half an hour later, Amplify Energy notified its crisis and emergency management company and federal regulators, according to Willsher, adding, "If we were aware of something on Friday night, I promise you—we would have immediately stopped all operations."

The initial suspect was corrosion. "Steel pipes want to corrode," Kuprewicz said.

Even if the pipeline was damaged by a ship anchor, corrosion could have played a role in the rupture, slowly compromising the steel at the point where it was weakened or stressed, but investigators will also take into consideration other factors, independent of an anchor strike or corrosion, including a manufacturing defect at welding sites.

Given these possibilities, the role that inspections could have played in preventing the spill will come under scrutiny.

Offshore platforms and pipelines are monitored by a raft of federal regulatory agencies that are mandated to conduct periodic inspections of aging equipment. In California, their work alone focuses on more than two dozen platforms from just north of Point Conception to Huntington Beach. Some are in state waters, some are in federal waters, and all are about 40 years old.

"It's not a robust system of oversight," said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Newly released documents from the federal Bureau of Environmental Safety and Enforcement show that the broken pipeline had been inspected every two years since 2007 by private contractors hired by Amplify Energy.

In 2019, repairs were made in three areas where pipeline deformation occurred, according to the summary report by federal investigators. "The internal inspection is acceptable and no remedial action is recommended at this time," the bureau concluded.

But as speculation grows over the role that corrosion and lax government oversight may have played in the spill, the Joint Unified Command, overseeing the investigation, announced on Tuesday that divers and footage from remotely operated submarines discovered that a 4,000-foot section of the pipeline had been violently displaced.

"The pipeline has essentially been pulled like a bowstring," said Willsher, describing some force that had pulled the pipe about 105 feet in an almost "semicircle."

The suspicion that an anchor might have caught and dragged the pipeline comes at a time when disruptions in the global supply chain, due to the pandemic, have led to a fivefold increase in traffic over the last few years. The bottleneck has required many more ships to wait at anchor before entering the ports.

Not long after the spill, early analysis of satellite imagery suggested that the container ship might have crossed the pipeline after straying thousands of feet from its anchorage.

After examining the images, however, the nonprofit environmental watchdog group Skytruth said it had found no evidence of drifting.

On Wednesday, Coast Guard officials boarded the ship that was in Oakland at the time and later released it without explanation. The ship is currently in route to Mexico.

The owner of the ship, Hapag-Lloyd, was aware that some marine traffic information showed that it had moved while it was anchored, but that "seems to be wrong," a company spokesman said. The ship's captain has provided logs, updated hourly, showing the ship did not leave its anchorage place for several days, he said.

Tracking down the responsible ship could prove extremely difficult. Investigators haven't always been able to find the culprit in suspected anchor strikes of underwater pipelines, or even come to a final conclusion that it was an anchor that caused damage, federal records show.

Investigators continue to look into the possibility that other ships damaged the pipeline, but some have raised the question of whether the pipeline might have moved so that its position on nautical charts was no longer accurate.

As the investigation continues, Kuprewicz advises patience. The first priority is to contain and mitigate the spill. Other answers will come in time, he said.

"The public tends to make conclusions that outpace the science," he said. "They think they can solve this right off the bat. But there is a due process to these procedures. The rule of law applies, and this process takes a while."

Video shows damaged pipeline responsible for oil spill off Orange County coast

©2021 Los Angeles Times.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

 

What is chaos? A complex systems scientist explains

by Mitchell Newberry, The Conversation

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Chaos evokes images of the dinosaurs running wild in Jurassic Park, or my friend's toddler ravaging the living room.

In a chaotic world, you never know what to expect. Stuff is happening all the time, driven by any kind of random impulse.

But chaos has a deeper meaning in connection to physics and climate science, related to how certain systems—like the weather or the behavior of a toddler—are fundamentally unpredictable.

Scientists define chaos as the amplified effects of tiny changes in the present moment that lead to long-term unpredictability. Picture two almost identical storylines. In one version, two people bump into each other in a train station; but in the other, the train arrives 10 seconds earlier and the meeting never happens. From then on, the two plot lines might be totally different.

Usually those little details don't matter, but sometimes tiny differences have consequences that keep compounding. And that compounding is what leads to chaos.

A shocking series of discoveries in the 1960s and '70s showed just how easy it is to create chaos. Nothing could be more predictable than the swinging pendulum of a grandfather clock. But if you separate a pendulum halfway down by adding another axle, the swinging becomes wildly unpredictable.

Chaos is different from random

As a complex systems scientist, I think a lot about what is random.

What's the difference between a pack of cards and the weather?

You can't predict your next poker hand—if you could, they'd throw you out of the casino—whereas you can probably guess tomorrow's weather. But what about the weather two weeks from now? Or a year from now?

Randomness, like cards or dice, is unpredictable because we just don't have the right information. Chaos is somewhere between random and predictable. A hallmark of chaotic systems is predictability in the short term that breaks down quickly over time, as in river rapids or ecosystems.

Why chaos theory matters

Isaac Newton envisioned physics as a set of rules governing a clockwork universe—rules that, once set in motion, would lead to a predetermined outcome. But chaos theory proves that even the strictest rules and nearly perfect information can lead to unpredictable outcomes.

This realization has practical applications for deciding what kinds of things are predictable at all. Chaos is why no weather app can tell you the weather two weeks from now—it's just impossible to know.

On the other hand, broader predictions can still be possible. We can't forecast the weather a year from now, but we still know what the weather is like this time of year. That's how climate can be predictable even when the weather isn't. Theories of chaos and randomness help scientists sort out which kinds of predictions make sense and which don't.

Physics Nobel: deciphering climate disorder to better predict it

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Environment lobby calls out Carney's climate finance credibility

Mia Rabson
The Canadian Press
Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:50PM EDT

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England speaks at a Bank of England Financial Stability Report Press Conference, in London, Monday, Dec. 16, 2019. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth,pool)


OTTAWA -- Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney's credibility as a global climate finance leader is under fire as environment lobby groups say he is allowing some of the world's biggest banks to use him as cover to keep funding fossil fuels.

Carney is widely expected to run for the federal Liberals in a future election and campaigned for some Liberal candidates in the election that ended last month. But he turned down openings to run in that campaign himself because of his previous commitment as the United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance.

As part of that role he is also chairing the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), aiming to get the biggest financial institutions around the globe to both commit and lead the way to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Related Stories
Mark Carney says climate work precludes running in fall election

The alliance is to play a critical role at next month's UN Council of the Parties climate talks, known colloquially as COP26, where a big focus will be on finding the finances to fund the climate promises to achieve needed reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

A coalition of more than 90 Canadian and international environment groups published full-page ads Thursday in the Toronto Star and Financial Times asking Carney to beef up the membership requirements in that alliance.

"While we applaud your role in establishing frameworks to help green the financial system, too many signatory banks and other financial institutions are using GFANZ and 'Net Zero' promises as greenwash, empty promises without meaningful actions or clear accountability," the ad says in a letter printed beside a giant photo of Carney superimposed on a background of flooding waters, smoke stacks and a sky tinted orange from wildfires.

Carney's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Richard Brooks, climate finance director at Stand.earth, said membership in the alliance is based on a general commitment by financial institutions that by 2050, all of their investments will be net zero -- in other words any businesses or projects they invest in will produce no emissions or ensure any emissions that are produced are captured by nature or technology.

But Brooks said there is no immediate requirement for follow-through and no commitment to divest from fossil fuel companies. He said for many of the companies, they signed up and then just continued on with business as usual.

"The threshold that's been set is very much, 'Hey, join the club and then sometime in the future we'll ask you to make some more commitments about how you're going to change your practices on this road to get into net zero emissions by 2050,"' Brooks said.

Brooks said the science is clear that action cannot be punted down the road. He said the membership requirements should be tightened so any financial institution involved has to commit to completely phasing out the financing of all fossil fuel companies and to cut in half the emissions produced by the investments they do make by 2030.

He said any institutions that don't meet those goals should be kicked out immediately so they can't use their membership as "green cover" while they squeeze every last drop of profit out of the fossil fuel sector.

"We've had way too many years, decades, of talking and talking and not enough acting, and it's really time to call people on their talk, and force them to walk," said Brooks.

A statement from the coalition behind the ads said most of the alliance members have not provided any details on how they intend to reduce their fossil fuel investments and have no short-term targets for reducing emissions themselves.

They also say many members in the alliance are still among the biggest funders of fossil fuels and some have even issued new financing to fossil fuel infrastructure since joining the alliance.

That includes Brookfield Infrastructure, which over the summer moved on its plan to take over Inter Pipeline, the biggest transporter of oilsands bitumen in Alberta.

The UN says more than 160 financial firms are signed onto the alliance but very few are Canadian. There are no Canadian banks among the 43 banking members, and only a handful of asset owners and managers, including the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 7, 2021.

Carbon Might Be Your Company’s Biggest Financial Liability

ESG

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

 Government Policy And Regulation

by Robert G. Eccles and John Mulliken
October 07, 2021

Yaroslav Danylchenko/Stocksy

Summary.

The price of carbon may be zero in many places today, but it’s unlikely to remain zero for long. That means that many companies have hidden liabilities on their books. To cover their carbon short position, executives can take several steps: Measure the position in carbon terms; determine if carbon intensity will increase or decrease as revenues increase; determine a set of carbon prices to use and the timing of putting them into place; price out future emissions; and finally discount the “carbon cash flows” by using your company’s cost of capital to discount the future carbon prices and determine a total economic impact in today’s dollars. Executives should then share these calculations with investors in their quarterly reports.

Through some combination of government intervention and the development of carbon trading markets, it seems inevitable that a price will eventually be put on carbon around the world. Underscoring this, a carbon price has been proposed as part of several bills before Congress, but other mechanisms like a cap on emissions in a sector or geography would achieve the same effect. Economic models and the experience of the EU Emissions Trading System suggests that a price could likely be between $50 and $100 per ton of CO2 in the near term and rise from there. At $100 per ton that would represent five percent of the global economy. Five percent of the global economy is a huge number. But where does this liability sit? With the world’s corporations.

A sad joke for corporate climate activists is that acting on climate plans is always “the next CEO’s job.” But every company has an uncovered “Carbon Short” position based on their emissions, and it needs to recognize this hidden liability today. This short position arises from the carbon emissions produced by their own operations (Scope 1 and 2, in the argot of climate accounting), and their products and services (Scope 3). Most companies don’t recognize this liability because these emissions are priced at zero today, were priced at zero last year, and so it seems natural to assume that they will be priced at zero in the future. One could say that companies are engaging in the carbon futures market, assuming that this fundamental “input cost” will never change. Anyone who works in commodity markets knows that uncovered positions can turn from profit to significant loss in the blink of an eye.

As Nicholas Kukrika, Partner at Generation Investment Management, puts it, “Companies need to manage their carbon exposure, and there is just about enough time if companies start mitigating these risks today. Corporate executives might be tempted to wait for ‘cheaper technologies’ to come, but there are projects that make perfect economic sense even at today’s relatively low carbon prices.”

To see the implications for one company, consider the example of ExxonMobil. The company recently had three board members replaced by a small activist investor, Engine No. 1, as a result of its failure to recognize that the energy transition requires some fundamental changes in its strategy and capital allocation decisions. Why were investors so incensed? In 2020 ExxonMobil released 112 million metric tons of CO2 “equivalent” (along with carbon, they also released other greenhouse gasses such as methane). At $100/ton, they would owe $11B annually on their own emissions. Since the company has earned only $8 billion on average over the past five years, this means they would rapidly be bankrupt. That surely is a good way to finally get the attention of their board. Add in the company’s share of the annual $60 billion from pricing the roughly 600 million metric tons of its Scope 3 emissions (it’s not clear how much they could pass on to purchasers) and the situation is even more dire.

Some companies, however, are already choosing to act now. Take Ryanair, the European low-cost airline. Like all airlines, Ryanair is an “existential emitter,” meaning that there is no readily available substitute to fossil fuels that they use to conduct their core business of flying passengers. Listen to their FY2021 earnings call on May 17, 2021, and you’ll hear a vision of the future. The carbon they emitted in 2020 cost them €150 million last year. Since that time the EU market price per ton of CO2 emitted has doubled. However, they’ve already purchased CO2 options to hedge that exposure so that it doesn’t reach the ~10% of profit that it might have by one analyst’s estimate.

Ryanair aims to develop a competitive advantage due to their fuel-efficient fleet and focus on operational efficiency. They claim that any passenger who flies with Ryanair instead of a legacy carrier is lowering his or her environmental footprint by 50%. So as the price of carbon rises, they believe they will steal market share through price competition and branding. Group CEO Michael O’Leary said on the earnings call that they aim to “get to zero carbon emissions by 2050 and also to continue to reduce our fuel consumption and make flying with Ryanair ever more green.” They are managing their climate risk as financial risk.

Companies need to start covering their carbon short today and they can do so with these five simple steps:

Measure the position in carbon terms. Calculate the total emissions and carbon intensity (number of tons per dollar of revenue) of the company’s operations and supply chain. Use the Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions’ calculations that will likely soon be part of reporting requirements.

Absent any capital projects, determine if carbon intensity will increase or decrease as revenues increase and model all future emissions.

Determine a set of prices to use and the timing of putting them into place. A basic approach would be to start with assuming prices of $50 in 2022, $100 in 2024, $200 in 2026, and $300 in 2028. This is one example of a forward price curve; scenario analysis could use several.

Price the forward emissions by multiplying the forward price by the emissions amount in each year to determine a total annual cost.

Discount the “carbon cash flows” by using your company’s cost of capital to discount the future carbon prices and determine a total economic impact in today’s dollars.

Based on the total economic impact, the company can assess the set of possible capital projects that will enable it to decide which carbon emissions to avoid now. Some will be pure efficiency projects that make sense with even a low carbon price. Some will be low capital-intensity projects with long lead times which can be started now to ensure that emissions are lower in the future as prices likely rise. Some will be higher capital-intensity projects that can be planned now but only triggered when the timing and level of carbon pricing is clearer. Some companies will choose to use offsets, though these are unsettled and the risks remain substantial.

The price of carbon may be zero in many places today, but it’s unlikely to remain zero for long. Recognizing each company’s carbon short position in a variety of carbon prices is a powerful tool. Following this recipe will drive the attention of management and the board to necessary changes in strategy and capital allocation in the transition to a net-zero world. It will be even more powerful if the company discloses to its investors how it is doing so. This begins by articulating its approach to the five steps above and then describing efficiency and capital expenditure projects. Done right, these steps will lead to a reduction in both carbon intensity and absolute carbon emissions as well as a protection of shareholder value in a decarbonizing world.

This progress each company makes toward managing its “Carbon Short” should be reported on a quarterly basis during the earnings call. Yes, companies must have a long-term plan for covering their carbon short by being net-zero by 2050, but they should provide short-term updates on the risks they face and the progress they’re making on their plan. It’s no longer the next CEO’s job.


Robert G. Eccles is a visiting professor of management practice at Saïd Business School, Oxford University, and a senior adviser to the Boston Consulting Group.

John Mulliken is the founder of Carbonware.org and was the CTO of Wayfair.