News Feeds

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: 

Nicole Rodel, nicole@priceofoil.org  

Shaye Skiff, kskiff@foe.org

 

Handful of governments block clean energy transition with billions in international finance for fossil fuels 

New research shows Japan, Korea, and US among worst fossil fuel financiers

• New report shows that between 2020 and 2022, G20 governments and the multilateral development banks (MDBs) provided $142 billion in international public finance for fossil fuels, almost 1.4 times their support for clean energy in the same period ($104 billion).  
• The top fossil fuel financiers were Canada ($10.9 billion per year), Korea ($10 billion per year), and Japan ($6.9 billion per year). 
• 71% ($101 billion) of the $142 billion in fossil fuel spending will end in the next few years if governments fully uphold recent commitments including through the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP) and G7. Most signatories are already implementing these pledges, but the United States and Japan in particular are backsliding. 
• Just 8% of all G20 and MDB international finance for energy went to low-income countries. Of that, almost three-quarters were for fossil fuels. While the finance delivered virtually no energy access for communities in need, this argument is frequently used to justify continued fossil fuel finance.

9 April 2024 – Despite the biggest increase in G20 and Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) international finance for clean energy in 2022, a report published today reveals a handful of bad actors are blocking a just transition to renewable energy with outsized financial support for fossil fuels. 

The new report, Public Enemies: Assessing MDB and G20 international finance institutions’ energy finance by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth United States, and endorsed by 23 other civil society organizations [1], highlights an alarming trend in international energy finance. G20 and MDB international public finance for energy between 2020 and 2022 poured fuel on the fire by contributing a staggering $142 billion towards fossil fuels, while only $104 billion supported clean energy projects. The report has been released alongside updated energy finance data on energyfinance.org. 

To limit warming to 1.5°C in line with international climate agreements, 60% of already-developed fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. In light of these limits, the IEA has sent a clear message that there should not be any new oil and gas field or LNG investments – public or private – beyond what was already committed as of 2021. 

The findings reveal that between 2020 and 2022 the wealthiest G20 nations are the primary culprits behind continued investments in fossil fuels, with Canada, Korea, and Japan as the worst offenders. 

• Canada: As of the end of 2022, Canada fulfilled their commitment to the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP) to end international finance for fossil fuels, and is under pressure to meet a separate pledge to end their much larger domestic ECA fossil fuel finance in 2024. 
• Japan: Despite being a signatory to the near identical G7 commitment to phase out international public finance for fossil fuels, Japan has yet to take steps to put commitments into action. Loopholes in Japan’s policy continue to enable fossil fuel financing, further exacerbating the climate crisis. 
• Korea: Korea is the only major fossil financier that has yet to put in place any policies to end its oil and gas support. 

The report also highlights where there is momentum to shift public finance out of fossil fuels. It shows that coal exclusion policies have worked to nearly eliminate all international public finance for coal. Seven G20 countries are also signatories to the CETP, and pledged to end their international public finance for fossil fuels by the end of 2022 and prioritise support fully towards the clean energy transition. While many signatories have followed through on their commitment, a few CETP signatories are undermining this progress, including the United States, Italy, and Germany, by continuing to provide billions of dollars to fossil fuel projects well past the end of 2022 deadline. If countries honor their existing commitments to end not only coal finance but also oil and gas finance, including their CETP commitment to negotiate an oil and gas ban at the OECD, it will shift $33.5 billion annually out of fossil fuels. 

Claire O’Manique, Public Finance Analyst at Oil Change International, said: 

“While rich countries continue to drag their feet and claim they can’t afford to fund a globally just energy transition, countries like Canada, Korea, Japan, and the US appear to have no shortage of public funds for climate-wrecking fossil fuels. We must continue to hold wealthy countries accountable for their role in funding the climate crisis, and demand they move first and fastest on a fossil fuel phaseout, to stop funding fossil fuels, and that they pay their fair share of a globally just transition, loss and damage and adaptation finance.” 

Kate DeAngelis, Senior International Finance Program Manager at Friend of the Earth United States, said: 

“While international public finance could be a catalyst for the just energy transition, government leaders are failing to use it to deliver clean energy solutions where they are most needed. As this report highlights less than 10% of the G20 and major multilateral development bank financing is even reaching low-income countries where energy access needs are greatest. Even worse, a shocking three quarters of that finance is being channeled to climate-wrecking fossil fuel projects that deliver virtually no energy access to communities, and instead, lock in more pollution, climate-wrecking emissions, and devastation.”

Peter Bosip, executive director of the Centre for Environmental Law & Community Rights (CELCOR) said: 

“International public finance streamed into Papua New Guinea over a decade ago to fund a disastrous liquefied natural gas project. Despite the human rights abuses and environmental destruction, these same institutions are set to support a related gas project that is likely to have similarly deleterious effects. This report demonstrates that Papua New Guinea is not alone – international public finance is still providing billions every year for fossil fuels. It is time for public finance institutions to learn some lessons from past mistakes and refuse to support Papua LNG and other fossil fuel projects.”

Makiko Arima, Senior Finance Campaigner at Oil Change International said: 

“Japan is derailing the transition to renewable energy across Asia and globally. Despite its G7 commitment to end fossil fuel financing, its public financial institutions like the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) continue to support new fossil fuel projects, including the Scarborough gas field in Australia and gas power plants in Mexico. JBIC is currently investigating a claim that it failed to follow its social and environmental safeguards in developing the Philippines’ first LNG import terminal in Batangas. Japan needs to put people and planet over profit, and shift its finances from fossil fuels to renewables.”

###

Regional press releases on this report are available for the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, and Italy.

Notes:

[1] You can download the report here. 

This report is an update to the November 2022 Report, At A Crossroads: Assessing G20 and MDB International Energy Finance Ahead of Stop Funding Fossils Pledge Deadline, which looked at G20 country and MDB traceable international public finance for fossil fuels from 2019-2021 and found they are still backing at least USD 55 billion per year in oil, gas, and coal projects.

• The Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP) was launched at the 2021 UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow. The 41 signatories (full list here) aim to “end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector by the end of 2022” and instead “prioritise our support fully towards the clean energy transition.” 
• This implementation tracker outlines country-level progress on the CETP, and is  updated on a regular basis.
• This fossil fuel finance violations tracker outlines the laggard countries who have broken their commitment to the CETP, namely the U.S., Italy, and Germany, and continued to finance fossil fuel projects with public money in 2023
• The IPCC’s AR6 report highlights public finance for fossil fuels as ‘severely misaligned’ with reaching the Paris goals, but that if shifted, it could play a critical role in closing the mitigation finance gap, enabling emission reductions and a just transition. More background on the role international public finance plays in shaping energy systems is available in this Oil Change International briefing.
• A legal opinion by Professor Jorge E Viñuales from the University of Cambridge and Barrister Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers argues that governments and public finance institutions that continue to finance fossil fuel infrastructure are potentially at risk of climate litigation.

The post Handful of governments block clean energy transition with billions in international finance for fossil fuels appeared first on Oil Change International.

With decades of experience, Reno Red Cloud knows more than anyone about water on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. As climate change makes fire season on the reservation — which covers more than 2 million acres — more dangerous, he sees a growing need for water to fight those fires. 

Red Cloud is the director of water resources for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and he recently received nearly $400,000 in federal funding to revive old wells that have been dormant for decades. He thinks the wells can produce over a million gallons of water a day. But there’s one catch: They have elevated levels of arsenic.

“We have to look at using these wells,” he said. “They are just sitting there. Instead of plugging them, like a Band-Aid, let’s utilize them for the future of drought mitigation.”

The Oglala Sioux’s water needs have doubled in recent years, with longer and hotter summers and, of course, drought. With more wildfires on the horizon, the water Red Cloud envisions could not only add to the quality of life for those on the reservation, but he sees this as a climate solution for reservations across the nation. 

“We think other reservations could do the same,” he said. 

Arsenic can’t be seen, smelled, or tasted. It is a natural element found in the upper parts of the Earth’s crust, and while a big dose of it is fatal, the more common issue is consumption of low levels of arsenic over long periods of time. 

Jaymie Meliker, a professor at Stony Brook University in New York and an authority on arsenic in drinking water, said the water Red Cloud wants to use should be safe to use to fight fires. 

“Nothing is really toxic,” he said. “One of the first things they teach you in toxicology is [that] it’s the dose that makes the poison.”

He said the concentration of arsenic in the soil is measured in parts per million while in the water it is measured in parts per billion. It’s “still a thousandfold as small as the levels that are already in the soil, back into the soil. I don’t see a big risk from that at all.”

The wells were installed in the 1970s when the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development funded and developed them for home projects on reservation land. Back then, the acceptable level of arsenic in a water supply was 50 parts per billion, and then in 2001 the Environmental Health Agency changed it to 10 parts per billion. When that happened, the pumps were plugged up and there were no plans to use them. 

Understandingly, some in the area are hesitant when they hear about arsenic. The water many drink on Pine Ridge is pumped in from the Missouri River but the reservation has many private wells with elevated levels of arsenic. Tribes throughout the U.S. are disproportionately affected by elevated levels of arsenic in their private wells, such as those on the Navajo Nation. 

A paper outlining a two-year study on arsenic in drinking water among Indigenous communities in the Northern Plains confirmed that those populations have higher levels of arsenic in their water. Prolonged arsenic exposure can lead to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancers, and other serious health conditions. 

The World Health Organization offers guidelines on the subject, saying, “Low-arsenic water can be used for drinking, cooking and irrigation purposes, whereas high-arsenic water can be used for other purposes such as bathing and washing clothes.” 

A funding summary of the tribes project said there was speculation on if the water should be used for agriculture and livestock. So, even though Red Cloud is interested in potentially using this water for livestock and agriculture, there is still more research to be done to look at the viability of these wells for other uses. 

Red Cloud helped write the 2020 Oglala Sioux’s Drought Adoption Plan. New water sources were the first solution to mitigate drought in that report. He hopes that other tribes look at their old wells on reservation lands to see if they can help mitigate drought — or if it’s better to just plug them up and let them sit. 

“The bottom line is we’re looking to deal with extended drought and the increasing intensity of wildfires,” he said. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Water from arsenic-laced wells could protect the Pine Ridge reservation from wildfires on Apr 9, 2024.

Seizing frozen Russian assets would help European countries reconcile military support for Kyiv with tightening national budgets, but it risks deepening the global dimension of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

EU leaders are soon expected to finalise plans to use around 3 billion euros in annual proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s military efforts. With no end in sight to the conflict in Ukraine, the prospect of Donald Trump’s reelection in November, and tightening national budgets, the EU is under pressure to devise financial strategies to sustain Ukraine’s defence.  

While the war has a human and economic cost for Russia too, time plays in favour of the Kremlin. Trump has expressed his intent to settle the conflict in Ukraine “in one day”, potentially by cutting off military aid to Ukraine, as suggested by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán after a meeting with Trump in March.   

Between January 2022 and January 2024, the US has provided over 42 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine, compared to 36 billion euros mobilised by EU institutions and member states. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, fully replacing US military aid in 2024 would require the EU to double its current level and pace of arms assistance.  

Meanwhile, global pressure to end Russia’s war on Ukraine is mounting. The conflict has worsened economic issues for many countries, disrupting grain and food supplies. Some of the most affected regions are sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and North Africa. Most people in non-Western countries want the conflict to end as soon as possible, even if it means Kyiv ceding territory.  

The EU needs to truly start treating the Ukraine conflict as its own security concern and put its money where its mouth is.

This is not a position the EU can afford: Russia’s victory could embolden further aggression against other European nations, and force millions of Ukrainians to flee the country, intensifying pressure on the EU’s borders. 

If it wants to avoid that scenario, the EU needs to truly start treating the Ukraine conflict as its own security concern and put its money where its mouth is. However, the need to step up support for Ukraine is hard to reconcile with squeezing national budgets across the EU: the German government announced a mix of spending cuts and tax rises at the end of 2023, and France is looking for more ways to reduce spending after February’s emergency budget cuts to keep its deficit-reduction plans on track. 

Russian assets, frozen since the beginning of the war in 2022, could provide the EU with the resources it needs to support Ukraine. Euroclear, a Brussels-based financial services company, holds around 200 billion euros of Russia’s foreign reserves, mostly belonging to Russia’s Central Bank. EU leaders and institutions have so far resisted US pressure to seize those reserves, focusing instead on their accumulated proceeds. 

Before tapping into Russian funds or profits, however, the EU should carefully weigh the legal, geopolitical, and financial risks involved. 

The legal territory is murky. International law grants immunity to central bank foreign reserves, protecting them from legal actions in host countries. While exceptions exist, their applicability to the current situation is debatable. Seizing windfall profits, as the EU seems willing to do, would raise fewer issues. However, while not irrelevant to Ukraine’s war efforts, 3 billion euros annually in military aid is unlikely to turn the tide against Russia.  

Before urging the EU to seize Russia’s assets, the US was considering doing the same. This wouldn’t have been a first: following its invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US seized 1.4 billion dollars in Iraqi funds, frozen in US bank accounts since Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. At the time, the justification was that the funds would be used for rebuilding Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. 

This time around, Russia has decried the potential confiscation as “theft”, claiming that it would violate international law, undermine reserve currencies and the global financial system, and compromise other countries’ confidence in the US and the EU as economic guarantors. The Kremlin also threatened to seize EU and US assets on its territory in retaliation. 

Financial shift underway 

Seizing Russian reserves or, to a lesser degree, their windfall profits, could also have global financial consequences. Countries that are at odds with the West or are subject to economic sanctions could fear similar repercussions. This could further fracture the international financial system, paving the way to a global shift towards non-Western securities depositories, to the benefit of countries like China, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore. 

In particular, such a shift would feed into China’s ambition to establish a global financial infrastructure independent of Western influence. Collaborative efforts with Russia to develop alternatives to the SWIFT financial transaction processing system have set the stage for this transition after key Russian banks were excluded from SWIFT in 2022. 

Before tapping into Russian funds or profits the EU should carefully weigh the legal, geopolitical, and financial risks involved.

China is also pursuing a broader strategic goal: elevating the yuan to a major reserve currency. This would also protect China against potential freezes or seizures of its foreign reserves if tensions with the US and the EU escalated, for example over Taiwan. Beijing currently has an enormous 3 trillion US dollars in foreign reserves. 

In 2009, China proposed a global reserve currency detached from individual nations and controlled by the International Monetary Fund. The proposal was not adopted, and China eventually shifted strategy. Since 2016, the yuan has gained recognition as a global reserve currency, with its share rising from 1.08 per cent in 2016 to 2.88 per cent by the second quarter of 2022. 

China’s economic structure and capital controls still hamper the broader adoption of the yuan as a reserve currency, though Beijing is moving towards further internationalisation. 

The de-dollarisation of the global financial market will be a gradual process. China and Russia are leading this change, but other countries around the world, especially in the BRICS bloc, are joining their efforts. The US and the EU ramping up their economic war on Russia could accelerate this trend.  

Double standards?  

The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 were blatant violations of the rules-based international order – a fact that has been used to justify economic measures against Russia, including the possible seizure of its foreign reserves.  

However, the EU has been selective in applying the principles of international order, losing credibility before the rest of the world. Despite mounting evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, with civilian casualties nearly tripling those in Ukraine, the bloc has so far failed to impose sanctions on Israel, and several EU countries are still supplying weapons to the IDF.  

This double standard could fuel a perception in non-Western countries that Europe is only interested in its strategic interest, and that the conflict in Ukraine is simply a proxy war between Russia and the West.  

All this leaves the EU in a difficult position. To avoid global repercussions, the bloc needs to show adherence to its professed values without opening another front in the financial war with Russia. Long-term support for Ukraine, especially if Trump returns to the White House, should come from the EU’s own financial resources.  

The Union should mobilise its member states, particularly those who have the capacity, to increase their funding for Kyiv. It could also encourage European arms manufacturers to provide weaponry for Ukraine at discounted rates, given the enormous profits they have already reaped from the conflict.

Vast and 14D are seeking to plug their planned big battery, solar thermal and solar heat projects into a transmission line currently serving two large BHP mines.

The post Reborn solar thermal and battery project seeks deal to plug in to transmission line to BHP mines appeared first on RenewEconomy.

News from Jenna Jambeck, Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative and more

Jenna Jambeck, a well-known plastics researcher and professor at the University of Georgia, was named the Southeastern Conference 2024 Professor of the Year. The Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative hired Devon Morales as its new vice president of external affairs. Recycled …

Continue Reading→

The post News from Jenna Jambeck, Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative and more appeared first on Resource Recycling News.

The former Trades Union Congress race equality officer reflects on decades of black workers' organising within unions

The post Unofficial unionising: an interview with Wilf Sullivan appeared first on Red Pepper.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

Published by Oil Change International & Friends of the Earth U.S.

April 2024

Download the report. 

Read the press release.

This new report, “Public Enemies: Assessing MDB and G20 international finance institutions’ energy finance” looks at G20 country and MDB traceable international public finance for fossil fuels from 2020-2022 and finds they are still backing at least USD 47 billion per year in oil, gas, and coal projects.

The findings reveal that the wealthiest G20 nations are the primary culprits behind continued investments in fossil fuels, with Canada, Korea, and Japan emerging as the worst offenders. The report also highlights where there has been momentum to end international public finance for fossil fuels, finding that if countries keep their existing commitments to end not only coal finance but also oil and gas finance, it would shift $26 billion annually out of fossil fuels by the end of 2024.

The report analyzes finance from OCI’s open-access database, Public Finance for Energy Database (energyfinance.org), which has been updated alongside the release of this report. It tracks financial flows to fossil fuels and clean energy from G20 bilateral development finance institutions (DFIs), export credit agencies (ECAs), and the multilateral development banks (MDBs). 

Download the report.

SUMMARY

Our analysis shows that:

Significant continued fossil fuel support by a handful of countries is blocking a globally just and equitable transition to clean energy.

• Fossil fuels received at least $47 billion annually between 2020 and 2022. 
• The vast majority of fossil fuel finance is flowing to gas – 54% of known international public finance for fossil fuels flowed to fossil gas, and a further 32% to mixed oil and gas projects between 2020 and 2022. This matches our analysis of these institutions’ fossil fuel exclusion policies, where they exist, which have loopholes that allow for ongoing fossil gas support. 
• The largest share (46%) of G20 and MDB fossil finance between 2020 and 2022 supported midstream transportation and processing projects. This includes finance for projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline in Canada, Mozambique LNG, and Korean built LNG carriers. These are some of the most expensive types of projects in the oil and gas supply chain. 
• ECAs were the worst international public finance actors, accounting for 65% of all known fossil fuel activity between 2020 and 2022. 
• The World Bank Group (WBG) provided the most direct finance for fossil fuels of any MDB at $1.2 billion a year on average. At least 68% of this was for fossil gas. 

A small group of worst actors hold an outsized responsibility, while others are working together to shift finance from fossil fuels to clean energy.

• The top three fossil fuel financiers between 2020 and 2022 were: Canada ($10.9 Billion), Korea ($10 Billion), Japan ($6.9 Billion).
  • At the end of 2022 Canada followed through on their commitment to end their international public finance, and is under pressure to meet a separate pledge to end their much larger domestic ECA fossil fuel finance in 2024. 
  • Korea has yet to make any commitments to end their international public finance for fossil fuels.
  • While Japan is part of a G7 Commitment to end their international public finance for fossil fuels, their current policy includes three circumstances where they can continue financing fossil fuel projects. These have served as loopholes for Japan to continue its fossil fuel financing.
• Coal exclusion policies have worked to nearly eliminate international public finance for coal. Support for coal dropped from an annual average of $10 billion from 2017 to 2019 to $2 billion a year from 2020 to 2022. This decrease can be attributed to coal exclusion policies that came into effect in 2021, including China’s coal power policy and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ECA Coal Agreement. Now these institutions must do the same and follow through on commitments to end their oil and gas finance.
• There is momentum to shift international direct finance out of fossil fuels. If countries and institutions honor existing commitments, 55% of this fossil fuel support will end by the end of 2024. 
  • Eight out of the sixteen signatories to the Clean Energy Transition Partnership with significant amounts of international energy finance have put in place policies that end their international fossil fuel support. 
• However, a few laggards are undermining this progress. 
  • The U.S. is the single biggest violator of the CETP pledge, approving the most fossil fuel projects of any signatory for a total of almost $2.3 billion.
  • Italy and Germany have released policies that fall short of the commitment and have big loopholes that are allowing ongoing fossil gas support.
• The international public finance institutions of Global North countries invested 58 times more in climate wrecking fossil fuel projects each year 2020-2022 than in the loss and damage fund created at COP28.

Clean energy finance is still too low, and not flowing to the countries that need it most. 

• Clean energy received almost $34 billion annually between 2020 and 2022. This is the highest annual average for clean finance since our dataset began in 2013, but is far below the estimates of the quantity and quality of public clean energy finance required to limit warming to 1.5°C.
• The top clean energy financiers between 2020 and 2022 were: France ($2.7 billion), Japan ($2.3 billion), and Germany ($2.3 billion).
• The majority of clean energy finance is also not going where it is most needed, flowing overwhelmingly to wealthy countries. Just 3% of all clean energy finance between 2020 and 2022 went to low-income countries. Only 18% flowed to lower-middle-income countries.

We urgently need public finance institutions’ policies, priorities, and governance to push towards a globally just energy transition. As part of doing their fair share to limit warming to 1.5°C and ensure a livable future, G20 governments and the MDBs they control must:

• Implement whole-of-government policies (or whole-of-institution policies in the case of MDBs) to immediately end new public direct and indirect finance for oil, gas, and coal projects. These policies must not include loopholes for technologies including carbon capture and storage (CCS), fossil-based hydrogen, ammonia co-firing, fossil gas, and other dangerous distractions.
• Dramatically scale up clean energy finance on fair terms, especially for transformative energy democracy and environmental justice priorities where need is greatest. This finance must be delivered on debt sustainable terms, and implemented with safeguards and standards to ensure all projects (a) uphold and protect human rights, including free, prior and informed consent; (b) are implemented with democratic and participatory processes; and (c) ensure the sustainable use of land, water and ecosystems.
• Reform their public reporting to ensure it is transparent and timely.
• Provide their fair share of debt cancellation, climate finance and loss and damage support to countries in the Global South.
• Work towards fair multilateral monetary, trade, tax, debt, and financial regulation rules that are aligned with a safe 1.5°C climate pathway.

Read the full report. 

The post Public Enemies: Assessing MDB and G20 international finance institutions’ energy finance appeared first on Oil Change International.

In Spring Radio's latest episode, we sit down with Matthew Huber to discuss the climate crisis from a socialist perspective.

The post Spring Radio: A socialist analysis of climate change with Matthew Huber first appeared on Spring.

Fortescue announces "landmark" joint venture to create a massive renewable energy, and green hydrogen, ammonia and manufacturing hub in Morocco.

The post Fortescue signs agreement for massive green hydrogen and ammonia hub in Morocco appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Batteries kick in as total eclipse sweeps across the US. Some states filled the gap with gas.

The post Chart of the Day: Batteries step in as solar eclipse sweeps across US appeared first on RenewEconomy.

One way we can think about tradition is who inspires us. Traditions of struggle against exploitation and oppression go back thousands of years. Think of peasant revolts around the world; the resistance of Indigenous people on Turtle Island (a term for North America mainly used by some Indigenous nations) that’s been going on since Europeans arrived; the resistance of enslaved Africans and their descendants; anti-slavery fighters like John Brown; the Industrial Workers of the World early in the twentieth century (a high point in the history of the working-class movement in the U.S.); and so many more down to the present. Which of these inspires us most or resonates most strongly with us depends on our experiences, our ideas about who we are, and our politics. When, in I Hope We Choose Love, Kai Cheng Thom urges people on the Left to take the idea of honour seriously, she writes “Honour means acting in a way that your ancestors would be proud of, even if it requires personal sacrifices to do so.” Who we consider to be our ancestors can include people from these various traditions.

Another way of thinking about tradition is more specific: Where do we get our politics from? Where do we get our ideas about our goals, our strategy, and our tactics? That’s what this article is about.

However, before tackling that question I want to make two initial points. First, for revolutionary victory, socialists need a developed and coherent strategy for how this can be achieved: in other words, a program. Second, it’s impossible for socialists to develop a genuine program unless we can synthesize the experiences of many socialist workplace and community organizers from across the range of sectors of the working class and oppressed people in our society and fuse them with the lessons of history distilled as theory. No socialist organization on Turtle Island is large and rooted enough to be able to make such a synthesis. For that reason, none of the organizations as they exist today can develop anything worth calling a program. Tempest doesn’t have a program; all we have is some ideas about goals, strategy, and tactics. This is true of all far-left groups in this part of the world, no matter what some of them claim.

We need ideas about goals, strategy, and tactics to help us answer the political questions we face. Our answers are provisional because they can change as the world changes and as we learn—they’re not set in stone. We should have an attitude of revolutionary humility about our ideas. There are some things we can and should be certain about, since the lessons of some past victories, defeats, and other experiences are so clear. One of these is that to start a transition to a classless and stateless society of freedom, what’s needed are social revolutions made by the working class that establish its democratic rule. But the history of the socialist left tells us that we’re no doubt wrong about some things about which we feel certain today. Today, our outlook about what to do next in our society is limited by how we’re mainly drawing on the experiences of a very small number of people in a time when social struggle is for the most part at a low level. (There are important exceptions, above all at present the Palestine solidarity movement.)

What questions do we face? Let’s start with three big ones. First, what kind of society are we ultimately aiming for? In other words, what’s our political horizon? Second, what would it take to break with capitalism and start a transition to that kind of society? And third, what kind of broad organizations of workers and oppressed people and what kind of socialist political organizations would be needed to make that happen?

Aren’t those questions about far-off, long-term matters? Yes, but they’re still important. Our answers serve as a compass that points toward where we want the working class to ultimately arrive, though we certainly don’t claim to have a path mapped out. Our ideas about what it would take to break with capitalism and start a transition based on democratic planning towards socialism/communism have direct implications for the here and now (Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, and never thought of socialism as a stage before communism. That idea comes mainly from Stalinism. On this, see Peter Hudis, Marx’s Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism.)

Karl Marx. Image source: Picryl.

That’s because our ideas about these long-term issues should inform how we answer more immediate questions. For example, is it important to build democratic member-run membership organizations of the Palestine solidarity movement? (Yes!) To change unions, should socialists prioritize getting elected into executive positions and hired into staff jobs? (No!) Is there a wing of the capitalist class we should seek to include in alliances against the far right? (No!)

So where should we go for our political ideas? In the twentieth century, three major political traditions that considered themselves anti-capitalist dominated the Left. They all still have influence today, though less than they used to. One is parliamentary socialism. This is the dominant politics of the Democratic Socialists of America. The second is Marxism-Leninism.

This is the state ideology that took shape in the USSR in the 1920s and was spread globally through the Communist movement and by the rulers of China and other states modelled on the USSR. The last tradition is Third World nationalist socialism, of which the United Socialist Party of Venezuela founded under the leadership of Hugo Chavez is one example. All three of these traditions treat state ownership of the economy as the basis of socialism. All three act as if socialism could be achieved by a minority (a party or armed forces) acting on behalf of the masses, as a substitute for them (substitutionism), either with or without some kind of revolution. (To be clear, mass socialist political organizations are necessary for revolution, as are new institutions of radically democratic popular power in workplaces and communities. The role of socialist political organizations is to provide direction in the struggle for the working class as a whole to take control of society through such new institutions.) These are three versions of socialism from above.

Social revolution and the transition to socialism would involve the self-emancipation of the working class. No party or other minority acting on behalf of the class can substitute for the rule of the working class itself. One label for this kind of politics is socialism from below.

Fortunately, there are other traditions. The one we should start from—which doesn’t mean it’s got all the answers to today’s political questions—is a kind of revolutionary socialism with several core ideas that distinguish it. First, our goal is a classless and stateless society of freedom in which people democratically plan production to meet their needs and repair humanity’s relationship with the rest of nature. Second, to start a transition towards that kind of society would take a revolutionary rupture that breaks the existing state and establishes working-class rule in the form of new radically democratic institutions of popular power. Third, such a transition would have to be a liberatory process carried out by ordinary people themselves. In other words, social revolution and the transition to socialism would involve the self-emancipation of the working class. No party or other minority acting on behalf of the class can substitute for the rule of the working class itself. One label for this kind of politics is socialism from below, but what matters is the political content, not the term.

It’s because of these core ideas that we can say,

Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others — even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

1This quotation doesn’t mean I entirely agree with the politics of the group whose statement I’m quoting.

In the most generous interpretation, these were the politics of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and, to name some important figures and forces from over a century ago, Rosa Luxemburg, the Bolsheviks, and others on the left wing of the socialist movement before the Russian Revolution, like Eugene Debs in the U.S. After the Russian Revolution, most supporters of these politics united in the Communist International. Those who remained committed to these politics sooner or later came to recognize that, under Joseph Stalin and his successors, the USSR and other so-called “socialist” societies weren’t “building socialism” and their rulers needed to be overthrown. These included Leon Trotsky and socialists for whom his ideas were important. Some of them then tried to go beyond some of the ideas of Trotsky and Trotskyism, like the idea that small socialist groups should try to organize themselves by applying a model developed for  sizeable revolutionary parties—the “micro-party” approach that Tempest rightly rejects.

Rosa Luxemburg. Source: Picryl.

There were also other anti-Stalinist Marxists, including a group in Russia called the Democratic Centralists and, in Spain, the Workers Party of Marxist Unification (Spanish initials: POUM). A minority of anarchists are part of this tradition too. Some of the people and groups mentioned were more consistent than others in applying a politics of working-class self-emancipation and rejecting substitutionism. And some strands of the tradition have been more insightful than others.

Supporters of these politics were nearly wiped out by fascism, Stalinism, and Cold War anti-communism between the 1930s and 1950s. The survivors were marginalized, which damaged their ability to act and think politically. In the 1960s and 1970s new forces took up these politics or were influenced by them—Walter Rodney, for instance. Unfortunately, in the decades that followed, these forces were then set back—as was the entire radical Left—by major defeats that capitalists and their states inflicted on unions, social movements, and the exploited and oppressed around the world.

Guyanese socialist Walter Rodney. Photo credit: National African-American Reparations Commission.

We should think about this tradition as a trove of political resources, not an identity. (Capitalism today pushes us to obsess about identity in narrow and static ways.) It’s an essential starting point. But its existing resources are far from perfect, and they aren’t sufficient for the politics we need today. We also shouldn’t be uncritical of this tradition: Its supporters’ answers to political questions have sometimes been wrong. Sometimes its supporters’ political practice left a lot to be desired—sectarianism has long been a problem for many political traditions. And sometimes they’ve been wrong about significant issues of analysis even when their politics were generally solid. A good example of this is Lenin’s mistaken idea that reformism—politics that seek only reforms within the existing social order2Radical reformists believe socialism could be achieved by accumulating reforms, without any convulsive rupture with capitalism.—is influential above all because of a  “labor aristocracy,” a minority of workers supposedly bribed by imperialist super-profits.

What’s more, the best answers of the past don’t necessarily answer the questions that face us today. For example, the theory of permanent (uninterrupted) revolution developed by Trotsky in the early 20th century was an important guide to socialist revolution in countries where capitalism wasn’t yet dominant. But today every society in the world is capitalist, and the theory has been superseded.

What’s still important is rejecting the idea of dividing the struggle for socialism into separate stages: first, a national liberation (or “democratic”) stage where capitalism isn’t to be challenged, followed, at some far-off day, a socialist stage. This idea has done enormous damage to the Left globally. It leads to socialists supporting governments that, regardless of what they say they’re doing, are administering capitalism through capitalist states. Examples include the African National Congress government in South Africa (which includes members of the South African Communist Party) and the Movement Towards Socialism government in Bolivia.

Vietnamese Trotskyist Tạ Thu Thâu. Source: Wikipedia.

There are no useful answers to be found in this tradition to some questions that face us today, after the passing of the classical workers’ movement. Above all, we won’t find answers about how to contribute to building unity, solidarity, democratic self-organization, and support for radical politics in a deeply divided and atomized working class in conditions shaped by contemporary capitalism, including the social industry and the deepening ecological crisis. But there are ideas that can help us as we work on this in cooperation with people who are influenced by various political traditions. One of these is the strategic concept of the united front. This theory was developed as a guide to action for revolutionary socialist parties that needed to relate to workers who supported larger and more influential reformist parties, and to the leaders of those parties. It can’t simply be applied by much smaller socialist groups in very different circumstances. Still, it’s valuable.

There are also valuable ideas from other traditions that supporters of this kind of socialism should draw on to help us develop our politics. For example, to take into account how racism confers advantages on white workers, we should build on the insights of W.E.B. DuBois and those socialists who most seriously grappled with those insights in the 1960s and 1970s, like the Sojourner Truth Organization. And there are valuable ideas to learn from today’s abolitionist, anti-racist feminism, and trans liberation politics.

Finally, we should aspire to develop this kind of revolutionary socialism in ways that confront the challenges of our times. Our task isn’t to guard a faith, a static tradition. We need to think for ourselves, collectively, using anti-racist, queer, feminist, and Marxist analyses of the society we’re trying to change. Yet, let’s remember that real advances for socialist ideas about strategy and tactics can only come from participating in and learning from upsurges of mass struggle. It’s those struggles that make real advances in political ideas possible.

Featured image credit: Wikimedia Commons; modified by Tempest.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”

The troubling ties of Richard Mack and his far-right pro-paramilitary group, Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, have been well documented by IREHR and others. This weekend, Richard Mack looks to add to his organization’s list of bigoted associations when he makes an April 13 appearance at The Altar Church in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The senior pastor of the host church is former state representative Tim Remington (R-2B), appointed in 2020 by Governor Little.

Titled “LIBERTY, THE CONSTITUTION, AND KOOTENAI COUNTY,” the all-day CSPOA event is slated to include an afternoon session open to the public and a morning session “Open to Law Enforcement, Incumbents and Candidates,” in the words of a flyer circulating about the event.

Anti-Mormon Bigotry

Interestingly for Richard Mack and Sam Bushman, who are Mormon, the church also aims animus at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon church.

The website of The Altar Church features a section on “Apologetics,” which includes multiple videos attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In a December 2018 sermon, Pastor Danny Cleave quoted the Apostle Paul in Galatians warning against those that would “pervert the Gospel of Christ, directing, “But that we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”[1] Cleave concluded, “I believe that that passage of scripture was prophetic in regards to both Mormonism and the religion of Islam.”

Pastor Danny Cleave

Cleave went further in another video on the topic. Describing a Mormon claim of experiencing a “burning in your bosom,” in part as evidence of the Book of Mormon’s veracity, Cleave said he would “caution anyone to base truth off of a feeling. Feelings can be given by things other than God for certain…it’s no question that Satan himself could generate those feelings and cause us to feel something.”[2]

Cleave criticized Mormonism for a lack of archaeological evidence in support of the history told in the Book of Mormon, even as his own church claims that “an honest” reader of the Bible would have “plenty of confidence” that the universe was created in “six literal days;” that the theory of evolution is a “lie;” and the idea of an earth millions-of-years old “unscientific.”[3]

Anti-LGBTQ+ and Anti-Abortion

The Altar Church makes clear its religiously-constructed bigotry against LGBTQ+ people, lumping “homosexuality, lesbianism, [and] bisexuality” with “bestiality, incest, fornication, adultery and pornography” as “sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex.” Continuing that, “We believe that God disapproves of and forbids any attempt to alter one’s gender by surgery or appearance,” the group declares, “We believe that the only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.”[4]

The Altar Church also holds that the state should be “answerable to God and governed by His Word” and rejects rape, incest, and “physical mental well being (sic) of the mother” exceptions for abortion:

“Abortion is murder. We reject any teaching that abortions of pregnancies due to rape, incest, birth defects, gender selection, birth or population control, or the physical mental well being of the mother are acceptable.”[5]

CSPOA Idaho Connections

CSPOA and its leaders have some known interactions with Idaho law enforcement. In May 2021, sitting Idaho County Sheriff Doug Ulmer posted a photo of himself with CSPOA trainer KrisAnne Hall on his “Doug Ulmer Idaho County Sheriff” Facebook page. Ulmer wrote, “Had the opportunity to meet KrisAnn (sic) Hall…Great speaker if you get the opportunity to attend one of her events it’s very informative.”[6]

KrisAnne Hall is a CSPOA trainer who holds that the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution – cornerstones of civil and voting rights– are unlawful. Hall’s ideas have also influenced Ammon Bundy’s People’s Rights network.

That same year, at a meeting of the Nez Perce County Republican Committee, Sheriff Ulmer was photographed with Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Mark Lamb—head of the “Constitutional Sheriff” group, Protect America Now (PAN) and a CSPOA member. Lamb’s group PAN is a far-right sheriff group that, like CSPOA, has entered the fray of activism around allegations of electoral fraud. Ulmer thanked sitting Nez Perce County Sheriff Bryce Scrimsher (also in the photo) for the invite to the event.

In 2014, CSPOA circulated a petition opposing Obama-administration gun policies and a related list of “sheriffs, state sheriff’s associations, and police chiefs [that] have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution against Obama’s unconstitutional gun control measures.” CSPOA described that “the list below includes members of the CSPOA and any others who have gone on record to uphold their oath by having made public statements, written open letters or contacted us personally and asked to be included.”[7]

Currently sitting sheriffs whose names appeared on the CSPOA list include Twin Falls County Sheriff Tom Carter, described as a “CSPOA Member,” Adams County Sheriff Ryan Zollman, listed as signing the petition, and Bonner County Sheriff Darryl Wheeler, Canyon County Sheriff Kiernan Donahue, Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz, and Washington County Sheriff Matt Thomas.[8]

According to the Boundary County Sheriff’s Department, a corporal who “may have had contact with the CSPOA and/or Richard Mack” retired effective April 1, 2024.[9]

The website Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs described Sheriff Wheeler, Sheriff Donahue, Sheriff Goetz, and Sheriff Carter as CSPOA members. However, this claim’s source is unclear and may be based simply on their appearance on the CSPOA list.[10]

The Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs declares its website “designed to be a one-stop place where citizens in the state can see if their sheriff, or candidate running for sheriffs, has pledged to uphold the Constitution, rather then (sic) the whims of the Federal Government;” that the website “will include the details of why we gave them this rating;” and describing that “If the sheriff in your county belongs to CSPOA we’ve given them a rating of Constitutional Sheriff for the time being. That can change if you have verifiable information we can use. We’ll still include the detail that they are a member of CSPOA.”[11]

Writing in 2022 for the far-right Idaho Dispatch, Doug Traubel cited CSPOA-trained officers as those who “know what the Constitution is.” In contrast to “weak establishment office holders…up for re-election in two years,” Traubel named current Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler and Adams County Prosecutor Chris Boyd as “the only two exceptions I am aware of that put their oath in action.”[12]

IREHR has sent public records requests and our concern about CSPOA’s recruitment efforts to sheriffs across Idaho. In the meantime, community members and law officers must make clear that CSPOA has no business in law enforcement.

NOTES

[1] The Altar Church Dec. 5, 2018 Apologetics, Mormonism Part I Pastor Danny Cleave.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3bG_YInb7o

[2] The Altar Church Dec. 5, Dec. 18, 2018, Apologetics, Mormonism Part II, Pastor Danny Cleave. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tS2t1SF2D4

[3] The Altar Church. Did God Create the World in Six Literal Days?. https://altarcda.com/did-god-create-the-world-in-six-literal-days/; The Altar Church. Is the Theory of Evolution True?. https://altarcda.com/evolution/; The Altar Church. Dec. 18, 2018, Apologetics, Mormonism Part II, Pastor Danny Cleave. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tS2t1SF2D4Accessed April 5, 2024

[4] The Altar Church. Statement of Faith. https://altarcda.com/statement-of-faith/. Accessed April 5, 2024.

[5] The Altar Church. Statement of Faith. https://altarcda.com/statement-of-faith/. Accessed April 5, 2024.

[6] Doug Ulmer Idaho County Sheriff. Facebook. May 7, 2021.

[7] Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. GROWING LIST OF SHERIFFS, ASSOCIATIONS AND POLICE CHIEFS SAYING ‘NO’ TO OBAMA GUN CONTRO. February 1, 2024. WayBackMachine. https://web.archive.org/web/20140530105709/http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

[8] Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. GROWING LIST OF SHERIFFS, ASSOCIATIONS AND POLICE CHIEFS SAYING ‘NO’ TO OBAMA GUN CONTRO. February 1, 2024. WayBackMachine. https://web.archive.org/web/20140530105709/http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

[9] Boundary County Sheriffs Office. Email response to public records request. April 4, 2024.

[10] The Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs website states the following; Adams County Sheriff Ryan Zollman: “a solid Consitutional (sic) Sheriff. He has partnered with sheriffs from Washington and Payette counties, as well as Malhuer (sic) County in Oregon, in an effort to defend the citizens of their counties from federal government overreach.”

Bonner County Sheriff Darryl Wheeler: “Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler is a member of the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officer Association.”

Canyon County Sheriff Kiernan Donahue: “Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue is a member of the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officer Association. However, there are reports that this is a recent development. According to sources Sheriff Donahue didn’t even know what the CSPOA was until recently and according to his opponent had called organizations like OathKeepers ‘anti-Law Enforcement’ organizations.”

Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz: “Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz is a member of the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officer Association.”

Twin Falls County Sheriff Tom Carter is a member of the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officer Association.

Washington County Sheriff Matt Thomas: “Washington County Sheriff Matt Thomas is a solid Consitutional (sic) Sheriff. He has partnered with sheriffs from Adams and Payette counties, as well as Malhuer County in Oregon, in an effort to defend the citizens of their counties from federal government overreach. Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs. Adams County. https://www.idahocs.org/Adams.html; Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs. Bonner County. https://www.idahocs.org/Bonner.html; Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs. Canyon County. https://www.idahocs.org/Canyon.html; Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs. Clearwater County. https://www.idahocs.org/Clearwater.html; Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs. Twin Falls County. https://www.idahocs.org/TwinFalls.html; Idaho Constituti0nal Sheriffs. https://www.idahocs.org/Washington.html. Accessed April 5, 2024.

[11] Idaho County Sheriffs. https://www.idahocs.org/. Accessed April 4, 2024.

[12] Traubel, Doug. Op-Ed: WWCSD? What Would a Constitutional Sheriff Do?. The Idaho Dispatch. Octdober 28, 2022. https://idahodispatch.com/op-ed-wwcsd-what-would-a-constitutional-sheriff-do/

The post CSPOA Gathering Scheduled for North Idaho Anti-Mormon, Anti-LGBTQ+ Church appeared first on Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights.

WASHINGTON (April 9, 2024) – The U. S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill by voice vote reauthorizing and enhancing a program that provides funding throughout the Americas for...

Sonoco Products Company and ENGIE North America have entered into a VPPA for production from ENGIE’s Big Sampson Wind Project, currently under construction in Crockett County, Texas.

The companies have agreed to contract for an estimated 140 MW annually for a 15-year term, to start when Big Sampson enters commercial operation.

“Collaborative projects like Big Sampson have the potential to help us make progress toward our emissions targets while delivering clean, reliable power to the communities they serve,” says Sonoco’s Elizabeth Rhue. “We are grateful for this long-term partnership with ENGIE as we work together to protect the environment and future generations and continue our promise of delivering ‘Better Packaging. Better Life’ solutions.”

The project consists of 60 wind turbines, each with a generating capacity of 4.5 MW, and is currently expected to be complete late next year. 

The post Sonoco Signs VPPA with ENGIE for Big Sampson Wind Project Output appeared first on North American Windpower.

The post ILWU, community coalition, defeats proposed baseball stadium on Oakland waterfront appeared first on ILWU.

Avangrid and Statkraft have signed a virtual power purchase agreement in which Statkraft will receive renewable energy certificates from Avangrid’s 300 MW Streator Cayuga Ridge South Wind Farm in Illinois.

This is the first agreement between the two companies in the U.S. market. Statkraft and Iberdrola, Avangrid’s parent company, have a PPA in place for energy produced at Iberdrola’s Korytnica II wind farm in Poland.

“We are grateful to partner with organizations like Statkraft that share our commitment to accelerating a clean energy transition,” says Pedro Azagra, Avangrid CEO.  

“Climate change is a defining issue of our time and it is vital that we work together to meet the moment. Agreements like this are a good example of our active approach to managing merchant risk at Avangrid’s existing renewable energy facilities, while ensuring clean energy continues to flow to the communities where it’s needed most.”

The post Statkraft Signs VPPA with Avangrid for Illinois Wind Power  appeared first on North American Windpower.

Biden administration to cut use of ‘forever chemicals’ in federal buildings rcoleman April 8, 2024

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency and the General Services Administration announced today that federal contractors will be required to use cleaning products free of PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” for use in the construction and maintenance of government buildings. The vast majority of federal buildings are managed by the GSA, known as the government’s landlord.

The action is an important step toward honoring President Joe Biden’s promise to tackle PFAS and follows an executive order signed in 2021 that instructs federal agencies to prioritize substitutes for products that contain PFAS. The Environmental Working Group and 25 other organizations have long supported action by the federal government to eliminate unnecessary purchases of PFAS.

“Today’s announcement shows the administration is serious about reducing unnecessary uses of PFAS,” said John Reeder, EWG vice president for federal affairs. “We commend the EPA and the GSA for leading the federal government toward a PFAS-free future.” 

PFAS have been found at more than 2,800 sites in 50 states, the District of Columbia and four territories. These chemicals contaminate the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans. One of the most important ways to reduce PFAS exposure and production is by eliminating unnecessary uses of PFAS wherever possible.

PFAS are toxic at very low levels and have been linked to serious health problems, including increased risk of cancer and harm to the reproductive and immune systems. The chemicals are used to make water-, grease- and stain-repellent coatings for a vast array of consumer goods and industrial applications. 

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Delivers on key promise in president’s plan to tackle PFAS Disqus Comments Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 April 8, 2024

Remote communities in Canada are transitioning their energy grids off diesel to cleaner, more reliable power. For these communities this is a costly, complex challenge requiring collaboration with governments, utilities, and industry. As Budget 2024 approaches, we highlight the federal role in advancing this work.

DESCRIPTION: Written comments to EPA regarding proposed rule listing only certain PFAS as hazardous constituents
TO: Environmental Protection Agency
FROM: PEER
DATE: April 8, 2024
TAGS: EPA, PFAS, toxic chemicals, chemical safety

 

 

 

 

The post Comment – EPA Proposed Rule on PFAS – 4-8-2024 (PDF) appeared first on PEER.org.

The US federal government is making historic investments in addressing the embodied emissions of construction materials. The Federal Buy Clean Initiative aims to turbocharge markets for low-carbon concrete, steel, and other building materials by leveraging the purchasing power of the government.

A key piece of this strategy is a $2 billion grant program funded by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and administered the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that will reimburse or provide incentives to infrastructure building agencies for the use of low-embodied carbon construction materials and products in projects. This is a critical demand-side investment in transportation infrastructure decarbonization — particularly for the concrete and cement sector.

Regional concrete markets are driven by large infrastructure building agencies, such as state departments of transportation (DOTs). Funding for low-carbon concrete innovation can catalyze transformational change across the cement and concrete value chain — from designers and specifiers to ready-mix suppliers and contractors.

FHWA’s Low-Carbon Transportation Materials (LCTM) Grants Program Is LIVE

In March 2024, FHWA announced that applications are open for $1.2 billion in grant funding through the LCTM Program. RMI has developed an easily deployable toolkit of project ideas that state DOTs can use to inform their applications to the FHWA LCTM program, specifically related to procurement of low-carbon concrete materials. Our recommendations build off efforts currently underway at many state DOTs. Our hope is to make it easy for DOTs to develop a cohesive approach to improving the durability and reducing the environmental impact of concrete. Note that the LCTM Program is designed to cover a broader set of building materials, and state DOTs should pursue projects to address these materials as well.

We encourage agency staff to use program approaches and ideas from this document. The Reduced-Carbon Concrete Consortium (RC3) is another resource that can support qualifying entities in developing their applications.

Four Priority Low-Carbon Concrete Initiatives

We’ve provided a list of recommended initiatives and project ideas that will unlock state DOTs’ abilities to procure low-carbon concrete materials. The recommendations are organized into four initiatives that build up to a well-rounded low-carbon concrete program for a state DOT. Deployed together, these initiatives will facilitate widespread use of today’s best, market-ready, low-carbon concrete mixes, while getting DOTs started with unlocking deeper reductions through innovative, high-performance mixes.

These initiatives cover both eligible “process development” items — activities that setup DOTs to procure materials with substantially lower embodied carbon — as well as initiatives to deploy eligible materials on construction projects. Download the document below for the full set of recommendations. The four priority initiatives are summarized in the graphic below:

Download our list of recommended initiatives and project ideas

The post Decarbonizing Concrete Infrastructure Projects appeared first on RMI.