Thanks to Oksana Engoyan, traditional shepherds now carry solar cells instead of diesel generators to their summer pastures in Altai’s mountains. Sandwiched along the border with Mongolia and China, Altai is a remote mountainous region in southern Siberia populated largely by herders and small farmers who have to deal with heating and electricity shortages on a daily basis.

The government has been trying to address the region’s energy challenge with large hydropower projects. Pacific Environment first joined forces with Oksana and her organization, the 21^st Century Foundation, in 1995 to fight these giant dams that are not only a threat to conservation, but also to the livelihoods and cultural survival of local herders who depend on clean and accessible water supplies.

“Hydropower plants would not just hinder animal migration routes, change the local climate, and limit access to clean water, but there was no economic justification” Oksana says, referring to Altai’s modest energy demand. “It was a mystery. Who was going to buy all this energy?”

Instead, Oksana believes that the answer to Altai’s energy shortage lies in harnessing the region’s most valuable natural resource: its human capital. “Many people in Altai have occupations that do not harm the ecosystem, and we want to help them continue to do this while also living a modern life. Technology makes it possible to build small businesses without a need for massive industrial projects.”

Oksana decided that the answer to Altai’s energy challenge was renewable energy. She built a demonstration exhibit for potential consumers to sample renewable energy generation, and she quickly found a market for small solar cells among the region’s traditional shepherds, who find the lighter and cheaper technology more practical in remote regions than heavy, expensive, and dirty diesel generators. “They set up a camp in the mountains to herd their sheep,” says Oksana, “and instead of carrying a tank of diesel for a generator, they just put up a solar cell” to produce electricity for light or to heat water. The solar cells are also popular with vacationers and others who live off the grid in Altai’s remote valleys. “Not only does this reduce emissions and improve air quality,” Oksana said, “but it’s convenient for the consumer.”

Despite the growing popularity of renewable energy solutions, federal and regional officials still assert that Altai’s economic development hinges on dammed rivers and cut forests. So Oksana is increasing her efforts to build coalitions of consumers, retailers, and government officials to bring clean energy into the mainstream—and support Altai’s economy along the way.

Oksana and her organization have helped establish several successful for-profit clean energy start-ups that install renewable energy equipment throughout the region. And they are gaining momentum. Recently an entire apartment complex added solar cells to its coal heating system. “They don’t spend money on coal all summer and they produce enough warm water for the entire complex,” Oksana says. She is even starting to get inquiries from municipal governments. Quarterly informational seminars on renewable energy investment have gained popularity with local government functionaries. “[They] could install these solar cells on schools and hospitals,” says Oksana. “They are coming to us because they are very interested and want to learn more.”

Like many other communities practicing traditional lifestyles in Russia, the people of Altai want expanded economic opportunities, but they are skeptical that massive projects like hydro dams will bring the positive local impacts promised by politicians and corporate executives. In small-scale renewable resources, Oksana has found a creative, viable alternative to large-scale polluting industries—a clean energy solution that truly puts power into the hands of Altai’s people.

When Shell announced yesterday that it was giving up on its plans to drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic this year, I was elated—but not exactly surprised. A chain of embarrassing accidents in 2012 clearly demonstrated Shell’s inability to drill safely in the Arctic. These fiascoes prompted a review of Shell’s drilling program by the government, and Shell did not even wait for the Department of the Interior to come to the obvious conclusion that the company was ill-prepared to drill safely in the Arctic’s harsh conditions.

Arctic wildlife is protected from Shell’s plans to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska for at least another year.

When I say safely, I mean drilling operations that protect indigenous communities and natural wildlife who depend on the Arctic coastal ecosystems. An oil spill disaster would be extremely difficult to clean up, kill marine mammals, and devastate the ability of Native peoples to maintain their traditional ways of life.

Pacific Environment, our indigenous partners, and our coalition allies used an arsenal of advocacy tools, including lawsuits, to stop Shell’s drilling plans for more than half a decade. And our fight is far from over. We will continue to campaign for more permanent protection of our Alaskan Arctic from ill-conceived plans to treat one of the last wild places on earth as an oil pump.

Climate change is melting the Arctic ice cap at an alarming rate. As the ice recedes, it gives way to new new sea routes—setting the stage for a dramatic increase in ship traffic that threatens the subsistence lifestyles of indigenous peoples and the health of the Arctic environment.

The melting Arctic ice cap gives way to new shipping routes.

Why should we care that more oil tankers, cargo containers, and other commercial vessels than ever before will be traveling through the Arctic? Because ship traffic is a serious threat to our global climate and the indigenous peoples and wildlife that call the region their home:

• Ships make noise that threatens whales and other marine mammals because it interferes with their migration routes, as well as reproduction and feeding behaviors.
• Ships emit carbon dioxide, a major climate change culprit, and are a significant source of other air pollutants.
• Ships strikes injure or kill whales and other marine mammals.
• Ships pose risks of oil spills that would kill marine life and are very difficult to clean up, especially in the harsh and unpredictable conditions of the Arctic.

Ship traffic along the Northern Sea Route (or Northeast Passage), which runs from Europe across northern Russia and then through the Bering Strait has already increased because it reduces the time (and with it the expense) for a ship to travel from Europe to Asia or vice versa from 14 days to 7½.

Over the next seven years, ship traffic is projected to grow by leaps and bounds. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, three billion tons of cargo moved from Europe through the Bering Strait last year. That number is estimated to rise to 25 billion tons by 2017 and 50 billion tons by 2020.

The Northern Sea Route is just the tip of the iceberg, though. Another major sea route, the Northwest Passage, which runs across northern Canada and through the Bering Strait to Asia, is also opening up as the Arctic ice cap shrinks.

The Northeast Passage (or Northern Sea Route) and the Northwest Passage.

Right now there is only weak and outdated regulation of ship traffic in international waters that does not address the rapidly changing seascape in the Arctic. That’s why Pacific Environment advocates at the highest international levels for strict environmental regulations. For example, we are one of only a handful of environmental organizations accredited to participate in shipping negotiations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO is a United Nations agency that is currently developing rules to improve shipping safety and environmental protection in both Arctic and Antarctic waters through a Polar Code.

In addition to participating directly in meetings and the drafting of the Polar Code, we are spearheading efforts to coordinate with other groups so that the environmental community is able to advocate for strong environmental protections with one unified voice. We are also actively working with our indigenous partners to make sure they know about key decisions and processes at the IMO to ensure that Polar Code regulations protect indigenous cultural and subsistence traditions.

As climate change opens up the Arctic to increased ship traffic, we will continue our fight to ensure that its waters, wildlife, and indigenous peoples enjoy the greatest possible protections.  I’ll be sure to keep you updated on our progress.

In China, where coal is king, Pacific Environment is harnessing the power of social media to show that the emperor is wearing some very dirty clothes.

We just launched “The Problem with Coal,” a Chinese-language blog on Weibo.com, China’s hugely popular social networking site. It focuses exclusively on coal’s devastating impacts on people’s health and the environment. This kind of information is rarely available in China, and we’re already seeing a flurry of activities, from re-posts and comments on the stories we’re sharing to users linking to national and international coal-related news and data.

Our new blog “The Problem with Coal” shares news and information about coal’s harmful impacts with citizens and grassroots environmental activists in China.

Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels. In China, it is the main contributor to the country’s air pollution problem, which kills 500,000 people every year. Coal burning is also by far the largest source of China’s climate change-causing emissions, which are set to double by the end of this decade.

Weibo is a critical platform for outreach and news sharing in China and it’s becoming an increasingly effective grassroots organizing and mobilization tool for environmental activists. Activists we work with used it to shut down a chemical factory along the Xiangtan River in Hunan Province.

A local activist tweeted this picture of toxic red sewage spilling into the Xiangtan River in Hunan province via Weibo. The image created a local media storm, helped shut down the polluting factory, and elicited an unprecedented public apology from the company’s chairman.

Right now there is little awareness in China of the harm coal inflicts on local communities and the global climate. Our blog is aiming to change that. It is a first, critical step in our efforts to educate the public and mobilize a growing network of grassroots activists to address the terrible impacts of coal on people’s health and local air and water supplies. Together with Waterkeeper Alliance and our grassroots partners in China, we’ve got an ambitious public education plan to reach out all across China to communities harmed by coal.

I’ll keep you posted on our progress!

Follow “The Problem with Coal” on Weibo (please note that the blog is entirely in Chinese language and you need a Weibo account to access it).

When I arrived at 1 Market Plaza in San Francisco this past Sunday, I saw an entire city block filled with people demanding  that President Obama block the Keystone XL pipeline and take action on climate change. This was the largest environmental rally in San Francisco history, with 5,000 participants, and  the largest nation-wide environmental protest ever.

The view from the stage in San Francisco

People were carrying colorful signs with slogans like “There is No Planet B,” “Your Pipedream is My Nightmare,” “Climate Action: It’s Our Obligation,” “Don’t Frack with CA,” “Occupy Planet Earth,” “Change the System, Not the Climate,” and many more.

Signs surrounded the stage.

My favorite speakers at the rally were two teenage activists. With passion and clarity they urged for climate action, knowing that they and their children will bear the brunt of the climate crisis with larger storms, longer droughts, more frequent wildfires, melting icecaps, and continued record breaking weather events of all kinds.

Our executive director’s wife and daughter at the Bay Area’s largest environmental rally ever!

United, we all had one message for President Obama: “Take a stand against climate change.” It’s clear that our movement has found its voice; and we will keep the momentum going. Because we  have no time to waste: decisive action is needed against dirty energy and for a clean energy future.

It’s your move, Mr. President.

At least since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008 it’s been a common refrain throughout the world that countries must crank up resource extraction projects to stimulate economic development. It’s an easy argument – more resources equal more money which creates better economic conditions – and it’s also wrong. A New York Times article published February 13 contradicts a lot of conventional wisdom about natural resources and economic development, claiming that valuable natural resources, especially oil, are a “curse” that often leads to increased corruption, poor governance, and poverty. It’s a sobering thought as politicians throughout the Pacific region ponder increased resource development in the next few years.

Evidence of this “curse” is everywhere in Russia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas exporters. While luxury boutiques and car dealerships are opening in large cities, ubiquitous unemployment, poverty, and decaying infrastructure persist everywhere else. Why? Because oil drilling requires lots of capital and technology but relatively few people. So much for “job creation.” And a ruble inflated by oil exports causes labor-intensive manufactured products to lose value at home and abroad. Even in Moscow, everything but vodka is stamped “Made in China.” Because Russia’s tax coffers are filled primarily with petrodollars instead of taxpayer contributions, the governing class has no incentive to meet the needs of the broader population. The result is rampant corruption, an increasingly repressive political climate, collapsing infrastructure, environmental degradation on a massive scale, and complete government unresponsiveness. It’s no surprise that government officials are adopting increasingly desperate measures to prevent civil society from undermining their nationwide get rich quick scheme.

But this curse doesn’t affect all resource-rich territories, right? What about Norway? Norway is something of a special case, fortunate enough to have developed democratic institutions before it discovered oil. And what about the United States? While it may be true that the U.S.’s vast resources haven’t caused us to sink into despotism, it’s hard to argue that they have been a net benefit. For starters, resource rich areas tend to be among the most economically unstable and depressed, subject to the booms and busts of national and international resource markets. They also tend to suffer from poor education, degraded public health, and crime (think West Virginia coal country or south Texas oil land). And can you think of a lobby that exerts a more corrupting influence on this country’s politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions than the oil and gas industry? There are some bright spots (Alaska for example, where the Alaska Permanent Fund pays annual dividends from oil profits to each citizen), but it seems clear that the world’s addiction to fossil fuels has not been good for the majority of people on the planet, to speak nothing of the environment.

Russia is far from the only example of the resource curse. Look to Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Middle East for other countries with high levels of both resource wealth and misery. These countries’ and our own experiences should be a warning to anyone certain that expanded Arctic drilling or the Keystone XL pipeline will bring more money and a better life. The lesson seems clear: reliance on oil may make some people rich, but it leaves most in the lurch.

Since late last year, Russian NGOs that receive support from abroad are required to register as “foreign agents” under new legislation aimed at discrediting NGOs by labeling them with a term loaded with negative connotations left over from the Cold War. Russian NGOs, including Pacific Environment’s partners, have largely ignored the vague and contradictory law. Only one Russian NGO has voluntarily obeyed the law, and Russia’s Ministry of Justice has refused to enforce it.

But now a group of Russian NGOs have applied for the European Court of Human Rights to rule on the law, which they allege violates their freedom of association and expression guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. A favorable ruling would increase the already intense international and domestic pressure on Moscow to repeal or soften the law.

What’s really at stake here is not the wording of an absurd law, but the role of civil society in Russia. Despite media reports to the contrary, civil society organizations have increased their stature and influence in Russia over the past decade. Pacific Environment’s partners have racked up an impressive set of victories, including rerouting a pipeline around the famous Lake Baikal, halting illegal logging in a forest preserve, and reducing forest fires in Russia’s southeast.

Our environmental conservation partners join a broader NGO movement that is performing functions vital to a free society, including election monitoring, watchdogging human rights, and aiding migrants. These successes terrify Russia’s ruling elite, which relies on a complacent population to funnel money from the sale of the nation’s oil, gas, timber, and other natural resources into private offshore accounts. The European Court of Human Rights is likely to condemn the “foreign agents” law, but the law’s very existence represents a tacit admission by Russia’s ruling class of the increasing effectiveness of civil society organizations like Pacific Environment’s partners.

Do you know what China, Australia, and the Arctic have in common?

Arctic wildlife, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, and the colorful Danxia Mountains in China’s Gansu province.

Apart from stunning scenery, it turns out that each is home to one of the 3 biggest threats to our global climate. Here governments and fossil fuel companies are pushing massive, carbon-intensive coal, oil, and gas projects that would cause climate disaster if allowed to move forward.

In China, the country’s northwestern provinces are planning to increase coal mining—moving the country further along on its path to double carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from coal burning by 2020. Australia is in the midst of a “coal export rush” that would eclipse its domestic consumption three times over by 2025. And in the Arctic, oil companies are preparing to extract newly accessible offshore oil and gas resources as sea ice continues to melt and recede.

Coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, is set to surpass oil as the world’s top energy source within the next 10 years.

Point of No Return, a new report by Ecofys that was commissioned by Greenpeace, ranks these projects as the top 3 among the 14 worst energy projects planned in the coming decades. Each by itself would cause the release of more CO₂ emissions than any other energy project in the world today. Together, they would cause climate change to spiral out of control by putting the world on a catastrophic track toward 5^o to 6^oC long-term warming. This may not sound like much, but to avoid climate disaster, scientists and 200 nations agree that the increase in average global temperature must remain below 2^oC.

Between now and 2050, we have a “carbon budget” of roughly 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide—the maximum amount of emissions that would allow us to stay below the critical threshold of a two degrees Celsius increase in average global temperature.

A 2012 report commissioned by 20 governments estimates that climate change is already claiming 5 million lives a year (through air pollution, hunger, and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-based economies). That’s the damage at a time when the average global temperature has increased by “only” 0.8^oC since the onset of the Industrial Revolution over 250 years ago.

Can you imagine what a global temperature increase by 5^o or 6^oC would look like? I can’t. But to give you an idea, here’s what’s predicted to happen if the temperature rises between 3^o to 4^oC: about 40% of the world’s species could become extinct; sea levels could rise up to 10 feet, swallowing lower lying islands and threatening coastal communities; important ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest and the Boreal forests would die back; and people would face increased risk of drought, water shortages, crop failure, poverty, disease, and civic unrest.

Climate change causes extreme weather patterns that are wreaking havoc around the world.

Yet governments and fossil fuel corporations are forging ahead with their wrong-headed plans—willfully ignoring the potentially devastating climate fallout.

That’s why Pacific Environment collaborates with local grassroots leaders on the ground to pressure politicians, officials, and CEOs to halt dirty fossil fuel projects and invest in clean energy solutions before it’s too late for climate action.

Here’s How We Fight the World’s 3 Biggest Climate Change Threats

In China, coal is king and there is little awareness of the harm it inflicts on local communities and the global environment.  To break the coal industry’s stranglehold, we are launching a grassroots campaign to educate the public and mobilize our growing network of local environmental activists to address the terrible impacts of coal on people’s health and local air and water supplies.

In Australia, we collaborate with the grassroots “Lock the Gate” movement, which is working to keep the rapidly expanding fossil fuel  industry off people’s land and out of their communities. We are also leading the charge against tax-payer-backed financing for dirty fossil fuel projects provided by Export-Import Bank, a U.S. federal agency promoting American exports. This includes proposed Ex-Im Bank financing for a huge coal export terminal and a lawsuit challenging a $3 billion loan Ex-Im Bank approved for a liquefied natural gas facility. Both projects threaten the world-famous Great Barrier Reef and already endangered wildlife.

In the Arctic, we continue to oppose Shell Oil’s Arctic drill program—a fight we helped start together with our Alaska Native partners in 2006. We are currently pressuring the Department of the Interior to conduct a thorough and transparent review of Shell’s Arctic drill program. The long line of failures, mishaps, and permit violations during the 2012 drilling season clearly demonstrates that Shell is not prepared to drill safely in the Arctic.

The battle against new dirty energy projects is the most important fight of our time. We have reached a tipping point where the right decisions must be made, and be made quickly, to save our planet from the devastating consequences of catastrophic climate change.  The time to act is now!

As a 19-year old, Kevin Harun adored actress Mary Tyler Moore; he was convinced that it would be a great adventure to track her down in Minnesota. When he told his grandmother, she thought he might as well be heading to Timbuktu—or Alaska. And when she said, “I dare you,” he promptly took off, carrying a cardboard sign with “Alaska Please” on one side and a Canadian maple leaf on the other.

Thanks, Mary, for sending Kevin our way!

Hitchhiking across the U.S. from Pennsylvania and up the Alcan Highway, Kevin fell in love again; this time with the rugged Alaskan landscape and its people. He immediately decided that this wild country was where he was going to build his life—a life devoted to preserving its precious beauty.

Kevin thinks of the Arctic as the beating heart of this planet. Where others see only ice and snow, he sees a pump that circulates water around the globe and regulates our climate. Kevin believes that the moment we started seeing the Amazon rainforest as the earth’s lungs, people woke up and began to fight its destruction. Talking about the Arctic as a living organ could be key to its preservation; and Kevin is committed to telling this story to help people understand that the Arctic is just as critical to the health of our planet as the Amazon rainforest.

After he decided to stay in Alaska, Kevin lucked into a job which took him to remote and indigenous villages all over the place that are otherwise hard to get to. Meeting people he never would have met any other way. Knocking on the doors of strangers, he asked to see what they stored in their refrigerator. Most people would consider this an intimidating assignment, but Kevin relished the challenge of these interactions. After checking the fridge (and maybe having a cup of tea with the resident), he headed to the local grocery store to record the local prices for refrigerator staples. Why? To compare the cost of living across the state.

Last summer Kevin visited Alaska’s Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, home to 200 wildlife species living within an area of only 150 square miles.

Kevin joined Pacific Environment decades after the life-changing hitchhike that inspired him to build a successful and multifaceted career in one of the world’s last great wild places.  He spent several years working to elect democrats to Alaska’s legislature and the U.S. Senate, was appointed to build and direct Anchorage’s Sustainability Department, and steered the Alaska Conservation Foundation’s Forestry, Oceans, and Arctic programs. Before that he served as executive director of the Alaska Center for the Environment.

Throughout his career Kevin worked to protect the Alaskan wilderness, Alaska Native peoples, and local cultures and traditions. He describes himself as “a connector” of people, perspectives, and ideas—able to work closely with those who have values and political opinions different than his own.

We are thrilled to have Kevin on our small, but powerful team. Stay tuned for his updates on our Arctic work.

A while ago I stopped eating fish, in part because I worried that it might contain an unhealthy helping of mercury—a potent neurotoxin that can cause birth defects and brain damage. As it turns out, I had reason to worry: a new report on global mercury pollution by IPEN, an international organization that fights toxics, uncovered that 84 percent of the fish we eat contains unsafe levels of mercury.

The report calls on policy makers to create a global treaty that will reduce the release of mercury into our air, soil, and water—including from coal-fired power plants, which are one of the most widespread sources of mercury emissions. This week, global leaders are meeting in Geneva to negotiate just such a treaty.

The alarming increase of mercury in our environment is one more reason why we must stop burning coal. Nowhere are the unhealthy impacts of coal more felt than in China, where air pollution kills about 500,000 people each year—and coal is the number one contributor to China’s air quality problems.

Because of the sheer amount of coal that is burned in China every day, it is likely that mercury poisoning is also rampant, although the data is not readily available. Rising coal consumption also contributes to increased water scarcity in China—20 percent of China’s water resources are consumed by coal-fired power plants, threatening not just people’s access to clean air, but also clean food and water.

Coal burning is by far the largest source of China’s climate change-causing emissions, which are projected to double over the next seven years. And there are other global impacts of China’s rising coal use: coal companies in the United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere are now exporting coal to meet this growing demand. Transporting all this coal affects communities around the world with air pollution, water pollution, and increased traffic.

Faced with a complex mix of environmental threats, coupled with the political power of the country’s coal industry, it is no wonder that environmentalists in China have been hesitant to challenge coal head-on. This year Pacific Environment is taking steps to help: we are working with Waterkeeper Alliance and close partners in China to spread the word about the risks of coal to humans and the environment. Through better assessments of local impacts of coal, citizen monitoring of coal mines and plants, and data sharing, grassroots environmental groups can play a critical role in reversing China’s coal consumption trend.

Already, momentum is growing for a global movement that aligns efforts to challenge coal from all angles. Recently, Pacific Environment, partners in China, and many others have signed on to a petition to demand a full environmental impact assessment of the impacts that North American coal export terminals would have here in the States as well as in communities in China and elsewhere receiving coal exports.

Here is something you can do right now to fight the devastating impacts of coal mining: read and sign the petition. Thank you for your support!

For more information about Pacific Environment’s new work on coal in China, please contact Kristen McDonald at kmcdonald@pacificenvironment.org.