Tag Archives: carbon

Let them eat carbon! The corporate plan to cook Africa in its own fossil fuels Updated for 2026





If you have ever wondered about what is blocking action against climate change, consider this.

There’s an estimated £19 trillion GBP ($28 trillion) worth of fossil fuel reserves in the world. Only 20% of these can be extracted and burned if the world is to stay below a 2°C temperature rise from pre-industrial levels and avoid catastrophic climate change.

The sensible solution to tackling global warming is thus clear and simple: keep these fossil fuels underground. This means that £15 trillion ($22 trillion) worth of carbon must remain untouched. To burn it would be tantamount to committing global suicide!

So, why is no real action being taken to tackle global warming? Because it’s all about capital: profit, not people and planet. It’s about the insatiable appetite for financial accumulation by fossil fuel companies, their shareholders and their agents.

To avoid a catastrophic temperature rise, industrial economies must urgently decarbonise the way they travel, power and move things. Even a 2°C rise in global temperature would have huge impacts. In Africa, this ‘safe’ 2° will in effect translate to a 3°C increase. The current ‘business as usual’ fossil fuel path we are on is set to burn up and fossilise the African continent.

And yet, though the stakes could not be higher, rather than halting the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels, corporations are digging deeper and using ever more extreme means of extraction. In this effort they are aided by their unprecedented political connections.

Papering over Africa’s scars

Chatham House’s Extractive Industries in Africa conference, which concludes today, has brought together miners and politicians to discuss strategies for exploiting Africa’s mineral resources. It is a clear indicator that the quest for profit does not consider the great harm inflicted on the continent and our shared climate.

Indeed, the damage done by the extractives sector goes beyond climate impacts and includes a wholesale disregard for human rights, the displacement of communities and unthinkable levels of pollution of land, water and the air.

The scars of mining in Africa are visible in the coal mines of South Africa, the gold mines of Ghana and Mali, as well as in the devastation caused by oil companies in the once verdant ecosystems of the Niger Delta. It is also well known that mining causes many of the persistent violent conflicts in Africa.

Sadly, however, ecological destruction for the purpose of appropriating ounces of minerals is often not seen as outright violence as it lays waste to the life support system that is our environment.

Designed to exclude civil society? That’s how it looks

By hosting this conference in London, not Africa, and charging exorbitant fees – £580 is the cheapest fee for non-member NGOs – Chatham House has effectively prevented the participation of African civil society and community members.

In doing so, the think tank has, intentionally or unintentionally, attempted to silence the people best able to describe the true costs of the extractive industries and to contest Chatham House’s conservative development narrative of ‘resource extraction = growth’.

Fearing that this may well be another Berlin Conference (1880) aimed at carving up and appropriating the African continent’s resources, we delivered an open letter from African Civil Society to conference organisers and participants on the afternoon of Monday 16th March.

In it we raise the voices of African communities and civil society and call upon Chatham House to show genuine leadership of thought. They must recognise that now is the time to think of the future of people and planet, not the health of the extractive industries.

Not a land grab – a continent grab!

Mining companies have learned new strategies for pulling the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting members of the public who invest in their stocks and thus back up the atrocious actions of these companies.

Through public-private partnerships with mining and fossil fuel companies, governments and other public bodies are sucked into unequal partnerships.

For the companies these partnerships offer legitimacy, a better image and a social license to operate as supposed agents of development. For public bodies and governments the equality of these relationships is merely illusory. A few will benefit, most will not.

Chatham House’s conference directly promotes such joint initiatives to give the extractive industries further access to Africa’s wealth. Yet it is clear that tactics such as public-private partnerships, so-called corporate social responsibility, good governance and transparency are too often mere green washing initiatives.

Despite these token efforts, Africa is experiencing new levels of ecosystem destruction and the intensification of poverty in impacted communities as part of what the No REDD Africa Network have described as a continent grab.

The time has come to challenge out-dated gatherings like that at Chatham House that exclude the voices of the people. We must move into the present by envisioning a fossil free future, reimagining our systems of design, consumption and use.

This cannot happen whilst we continue to sugar-coat destructive, unsustainable mining. The level of destruction already inflicted on Africa is nothing short of ecocide.

Rather than finding underhand ways to exploit new mineral and fossil fuel reserves in Africa, extractive companies should be challenged to invest in clean-up and environmental restoration activities.

These companies must not be allowed to position themselves as saviours when they have been the abusers of the African continent. They must be held accountable.

 


 

Read the letter to Chatham House from African Civil Society groups and their supporters here.

Nnimmo Bassey is a published poet, head of Home of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria and former Chair of Friends of the Earth International. He also runs Oilwatch International. Bassey’s poetry collections include ‘We Thought It Was Oil But It Was Blood’ (2002) and ‘I will Not Dance to Your Beat’ (Kraft Books, 2011). His latest book, ‘To Cook a Continent’ (Pambazuka Press, 2012) deals with destructive fossil fuel industries and the climate crisis in Africa. He was listed as one of Time magazine’s Heroes of the Environment in 2009 and won the 2010-Right Livelihood Award also known as the ‘Alternative Noble Prize.’

Sheila Berry is a psychologist and long time environmental justice activist from South Africa. She is currently fighting alongside South African communities in KwaZulu Natal to protect the iMfolozi Wilderness Area from Ibutho Coal’s plans to build Fuleni open-cast coal mine just 40m from the park’s edge.

Both Nnimmo and Sheila are members of Yes to life, No to Mining, a global solidarity movement of and for communities who wish to say no to mining out of a shared commitment to protect Earth for future generations.

 




391374

Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us! Updated for 2026





Dear Baroness Worthington,

I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.

I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.

I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.

So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?

And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?

Nuclear power is not low carbon!

Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:

The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.

Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.

Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.

Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.

Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.

As for the ‘molten salt’ thorium reactor technology you espouse, it is fraught with most of the same issues as any other nuclear fission technology.

And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.

Finite investment funds must go into renewables!

The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.

Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!

If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding –  we could be online to meet our carbon targets.

Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.

What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?

There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!

But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?

You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.

You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.

How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?

You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.

I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.

The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.

I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.

I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.

 


 

Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.

Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping. 

 

 




391182

Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us! Updated for 2026





Dear Baroness Worthington,

I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.

I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.

I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.

So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?

And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?

Nuclear power is not low carbon!

Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:

The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.

Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.

Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.

Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.

Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.

As for the ‘molten salt’ thorium reactor technology you espouse, it is fraught with most of the same issues as any other nuclear fission technology.

And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.

Finite investment funds must go into renewables!

The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.

Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!

If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding –  we could be online to meet our carbon targets.

Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.

What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?

There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!

But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?

You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.

You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.

How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?

You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.

I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.

The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.

I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.

I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.

 


 

Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.

Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping. 

 

 




391182

Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction – the reality is much worse Updated for 2026





The IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published in their latest report, AR5, a set of ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’ (RCP’s).

These RCP’s (see graph, right) consist of four scenarios that project global temperature rises based on different quantities of greenhouse gas concentrations.

The scenarios are assumed to all be linked directly to emissions scenarios. The more carbon we emit then the hotter it gets. Currently humanity is on the worst case scenario of RCP 8.5 which takes us to 2°C warming by mid century and 4°C warming by the end of the century.

As Professor Schellnhuber, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Research (PIK) said, the difference between two and four degrees is human civilisation.”

In 2009 the International Union of Forest Research Organisations delivered a report to the UN that stated that the natural carbon sink of trees could be lost at a 2.5°C temperature increase.

The ranges for RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 both take us over 2.5°C and any idea that we can survive when the tree sink flips from being a carbon sink to a carbon source is delusional.

Where does this leave us?

Of the four shown RCP’s only one keeps us within the range that climate scientists regard as survivable. This is RCP 2.6 that has a projected temperature range of 0.9°C and 2.3°C.

Considering we are currently at 0.85°C above the preindustrial level of greenhouse gas concentrations, we are already entering the range and as Professor Martin Rees says: “I honestly would bet, sad though it is, that the annual CO2 emissions are going to rise year by year for at least the next 20 years and that will build up accumulative levels close to 500 parts per million.”

The recent US / China agreement supports Rees’s contentions. But even if Rees is wrong and we do manage to curtail our carbon emissions, a closer look at RCP 2.6 shows something much more disturbing.

In his image (see graph, right), IPCC SMP Expert Reviewer David Tattershall has inserted vertical red lines to mark the decades between years 2000 and 2100. Within this 21st Century range he has also highlighted a steep decline in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (shown by the steep declining thick red line).

It is interesting that concerted action for emissions reductions is timed to occur just beyond the date for the implementation of a supposed legally binding international agreement.

Stopping emissions does not reduce atmospheric carbon. The emissions to date are colossal and the warming effect is delayed by around 40 years. Therefore, even if we halt emissions, we know there is much more warming to come. That will also set off other positive feedbacks along the way that will amplify the warming further, stretching over centuries.

So how does the IPCC achieve these vast reductions in greenhouse gases?

If we look at the vertical red lines, at around 2025 the steep decline in atmospheric greenhouse gases begins. Accumulated emissions not only are reduced to zero in 2070 but actually go negative.

This chart shows that carbon is removed from the atmosphere in quantities of hundreds of billions of tonnes, for as far ahead as 2300 to sustain a temperature beneath 2°C.

What makes this idea of projected large-scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) even more perverse is the talk by policymakers of a “carbon budget”. This refers to the amount of fossil fuel that can be burned before we are at risk of reaching a 2°C rise in global mean temperature.

It is quite clear that we have no carbon budget whatsoever. The account, far from being in surplus, is horrendously overdrawn. To claim we have a few decades of safely burning coal, oil and gas is an utter nonsense.

Sequestering billions of tonnes of carbon for centuries

If all of the above has not raised any alarm bells then perhaps it is time to consider the proposed methods for sucking the billions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere.

In February 2015 the National Research Council in the United States launched their two reports on “climate interventions”. Dr Nutt concluded with this statement on CDR:

“Carbon Dioxide Removal strategies offer the potential to decrease carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere but they are limited right now by their slow response, by their inability to scale up and their high cost.”

Dr Nutt’s conclusion points to very important factor that we can elaborate on with a rare case of certainty. There is no proposed CDR technology that can be scaled up to suck billions of tonnes out of the Earth’s atmosphere. It simply does not exist in the real world.

This is reiterated by Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at the University of Cambridge, who points out:

“10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don’t do anything on this planet on that scale. We don’t manufacture food on that scale, we don’t mine iron ore on that scale. We don’t even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?”

Science fiction

It is not just that there are currently no ideas being researched to such a degree where they are likely to be able to bring down atmospheric carbon to a safe level of around 300 parts per million. It is also that the level of funding available to the scientists doing the research is woefully inadequate.

These RCP’s are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction.

It makes for sober thinking when glossy images of President Obama and the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, are presented to the world shaking hands on global emissions reductions by 2030 that we know will commit us to catastrophe.

 


 

Nick Breeze is a film maker and writer on climate change and other environmental topics. He has been interviewing a range of experts relating to the field of climate change and science for over five years. These include interviews with Dr James Hansen, Professor Martin Rees, Professor James Lovelock, Dr Rowan Williams, Dr Natalia Shakhova, Dr Michael Mann, Dr Hugh Hunt, among others.

Additional articles can also be read on his blog Envisionation.

 

 




390807

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Carbon stored deep in Antarctic waters ended the last ice age Updated for 2026





It’s well known that carbon in the atmosphere is causing global warming. What is less well known, outside of scientific circles at least, is the role oceans have to play in this.

Our seas contain 60 times more carbon than the atmosphere, and they can release it at sufficiently rapid rates to cause dramatic changes in the climate. In fact, as we describe in research published in Nature, CO2 released by the oceans brought about the end of the last ice age.

More than 50 million cubic kilometres of ice once covered North America and Scandinavia. It melted away between approximately 19,000 and 10,000 years ago, releasing enough water to raise the sea level by about 130 metres.

This came after CO2 concentrations increased by approximately 50%, from 180 to 280 parts per million between the last ice age and the current interglacial period. To explain such a pronounced increase, we have to look at the ocean.

Scientists have thought for a long time that the southern sectors of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, a region known as the Southern Ocean, may be key to explaining the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Large volumes of deep water loaded with carbon come to the surface in this area. However, the low concentration of certain nutrients (for example iron) in surface waters limits the metabolism of planktonic organisms, which cannot fully consume all the carbon brought to the surface ocean, resulting in CO2 being ‘outgassed’ to the atmosphere.

We wanted to assess if the ocean contributed to the atmospheric CO2 increase during the last deglaciation, so it made sense to look at areas that are important today for the ocean-atmosphere exchange of carbon: the Atlantic Sector of the Southern Ocean and the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, another area where deep, cold water rises to the surface.

But how can we then go back in time and check if these areas were a source of CO2 in the atmosphere? The answer is buried a few thousand meters below the surface of the oceans.

The well-kept secrets secrets of long dead plankton

Research vessels such as the Joides Resolution are capable of drilling the sea floor to recover long sequences of sediments in which the history of the oceans is recorded. The sediments contain, among other things, fossils of tiny organisms that once lived in the upper ocean, called foraminifera. These creatures build chalky shells, and the waters they live in influence their chemical composition.

After death, the shells sink to the bottom of the oceans, where they accumulate. We analysed the sediment cores and looked for the isotopic composition of the element boron present in shells that lived during particular times of interest.

Boron tells us pH levels of the waters, which in turn tells us about carbon levels: a high concentration of CO2 in the waters will make them more acidic (lower pH), and vice versa.

We found a link. When the glaciers of the last ice age were melting, and the atmospheric CO2 was increasing, the surface waters of the Southern Ocean and the Eastern Equatorial Pacific were also more acidic. This signalled an increased concentration of CO2 – much higher than those in the atmosphere.

This is the key finding of our research: the deep ocean was a source of CO2 to the atmosphere during key intervals of the last deglaciation, which explains the large increase in CO2 concentrations.

Where did this carbon come from?

It’s the next obvious question. Previous research has found that the last ice age saw much less carbon exchanged between ocean and atmosphere than we see today, mostly because the Southern Ocean was intensely stratified at the time and deep waters rarely made it to the surface.

Nutrients and CO2 were accumulating in the deep Southern Ocean, due to the decay of the organic matter that was being produced in the surface ocean and transported to the abyss.

During the deglaciation, the effective communication between deep and upper ocean was re-established, and this carbon ‘reservoir’ was leaked to the atmosphere.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the oceans have absorbed an estimated 155 billion tonnes of carbon, about 30% of the total human emissions.

The present atmospheric CO2 concentrations, approximately 400 parts per million, have not been seen on Earth since the Pliocene, around 3 million years ago, and the rate of increase is unprecedented in the period of on-off glaciers we have had since.

Humanity is performing a large scale experiment with the Earth, and the consequences are already being seen in the form of increased atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, raising sea levels and ocean acidification, to name a few.

How the oceanic uptake of CO2 is going to operate in the future remains unknown, but studies like ours advance our understanding of how the ocean works to store and release carbon on timescales of millennia and that therefore are way beyond the reach of the instrumental record.

 


 

The paper:Boron isotope evidence for oceanic carbon dioxide leakage during the last deglaciation‘ by M. A. Martínez-Botí et al is published in Nature.

Miguel Martinez-Boti is Visiting Researcher, National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton.

Gianluca Marino is Researcher in Oceans & Climate Change at the Australian National University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




390221