Posts Tagged ‘Export Credit Agencies’

US Financed Papua New Guinea Fossil Fuel Project Draws Violence

Friday, January 28th, 2011

In December of 2009, the U.S. Ex Im Bank gave a record $3 Billion dollars in financing to ExxonMobil for a controversial Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Papua New Guinea.   NGOs and Civil Society groups in Papua New Guinea and abroad warned Ex Im Bank that this project’s pipeline would slice through tribal lands and stir conflicts among local people.  And, as predicted, that’s exactly what happened.

Early this week, an outbreak of violence was reportedly sparked by the recent death of a child near the project site. Villagers reportedly attacked employees of an international contractor to the gas project which led to the shutdown of work at one of the LNG project sites.  Disputes between local landowners and the $15 billion dollar LNG project are nothing new and have been reported several times since the project was sanctioned in 2009. The project was disrupted even last week when landowners protested that they hadn’t received the benefits they have been promised from this project. In February 2010, four people were reportedly killed when fighting broke out over a land dispute and there have been several other shutdowns of the project due to similar issues with landowners and tribal communities.

(more…)

Copenhagen: Rhetoric vs. Reality

Monday, December 7th, 2009

On the first day of climate talks in Copenhagen, I have been thinking a lot about rhetoric vs. reality.  The last few days have been abuzz with rumors that the climate talks will result in a deal.  Obama changed his plans to attend the final day of the conference, befitting his role as a major world leader.  The pressure will be on U.S. negotiators to make sure that Obama’s trip is not in vain.

I hope that they are right and that we will get a real, enforceable, meaningful international agreement that leads to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.  Our planet is crying out for this.  Kudos to the newspapers around the world that banded together to prove that an international agreement is, in fact, possible (at least among newspapers) by printing the same editorial calling for a meaningful agreement:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial

(more…)

Bank Fails to Support Renewable Energy

Monday, November 9th, 2009

Posted by Doug Norlen

Today, the U.S. Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank announced its official carbon policy.

Ex-Im Bank’s policy does nothing to curb the agency’s growing overall portfolio of greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, applications to Ex-Im Bank for greenhouse gas-emitting projects are skyrocketing after the financial crisis, as project sponsors seek public subsidies to prop up economically and ecologically damaging projects.  Ex-Im Bank continues to subsidize fossil fuel-related transactions despite the recent G-20 pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.

Ex-Im Bank touts is support for renewable energy and energy efficiency, yet in recent years its support for these transactions represent less than 2% of its overall energy portfolio.

Ex-Im Bank’s carbon policy perpetuates the approach taken under the Bush Administration and undercuts the Obama Administration’s claim to international leadership on climate change.

Read the story as reported by Environmental Finance here.

Pacific Environment in Poznan

Friday, December 19th, 2008

This month I joined over 11,000 others at the 14th United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP-14), in Poznan, Poland.  Reactions from the enormous conference ranged from disappointment at the lack of progress in negotiations to enthusiasm and hope. We’re hoping that the incoming Obama Administration will bring new international leadership and end the eight years of obstructionism that has characterized the Bush Administration’s approach to climate change.

In Poznan, Pacific Environment focused on the funding needed for countries to meet their obligations under the climate change convention (especially for climate change mitigation and adaptation).  Most environmental organizations and developing countries want to see the mechanisms controlling funding remain controlled by the climate change convention’s Conference of Parties, which reflects the wide and more democratic membership of the UN.  However, some developed countries support funds under the control of the World Bank Group, over which they have more control.  This is despite the fact that the World Bank has a record of financing projects that worsen climate change and that otherwise do social and environmental harm.

Pacific Environment participated in two statements on this topic that were released at COP-14:

http://members.foei.org/en/campaigns/climate/kyoto-protocol/world-bank-out-of-climate-change-finance

http://www.ifg.org/events/copenhagen2008/Global_Climate_Fund_Poznan.pdf

Meanwhile, governments world-wide continue to subsidize harmful fossil fuel projects that undermine their own commitments under the climate change convention.  It reminded me that continued grass-roots resistance to these projects by Pacific Environment and its partners, wholly outside of the massive and cumbersome climate change convention processes, is as crucial as ever.

All the Noise Around Whales

Tuesday, November 27th, 2007
Posted by David Gordon

Our policy director Doug Norlen recently attended the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel meeting as an observer.  This panel, known as “WGWAP” for short, was set up by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Shell/Sakhalin Energy to make recommendations to minimize the impacts from oil and gas development around Sakhalin on critically endangered Western Gray Whales.  The primary feeding ground for Western Gray Whales is directly adjacent to Sakhalin Energy’s drilling area and two offshore platforms.  The whales are impacted from noise, construction activities, ship traffic, and potentially by oil spills.

The idea behind the panel is a good one:  let’s bring together some of the best scientists in the world to review Shell’s plans and make recommendations to make sure that it minimizes the harm to Western Gray Whales.  This would work, if Shell took the panel’s recommendations seriously.  Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, Shell just does what it wants and ignores the panel’s recommendations.

This is especially apparent on noise issues.  For over a year now, the panel’s scientists have asked Shell to use a certain set of noise criteria.  Shell has refused, saying this is unnecessary and could lead to shutdowns in their operations and delays of their construction schedules.  But isn’t the idea here to protect the critically endangered western gray whales?  Shell’s refusal means that it can create noise “spikes” without shutting down its operations.  Yet clearly this is not to the benefit of the whales.

Environmentalists who were observing the construction this summer warned that a lot of noise in early July appeared to be frightening the whales away.  Shell says that its acoustic recordings either weren’t working or didn’t pick up the noise.  But since Shell refuses to abide by the panel’s reasonable recommendations, there’s no way to be sure.  Unfortunately, IUCN appears to have too close of a financial relationship with Shell to hold the company’s feet to the fire.  Meanwhile, potential public lenders, including the export credit agencies of the US, UK and Japan, have set adherence to the WGWAP recommendations as a condition of their financing.  Yet, they too appear to be letting Shell of the hook. After years of concern about Western Gray Whales, Shell is still avoiding its responsibilities to follow the advice of the scientists.

As Sakhalin Energy plans to conduct new seismic testing in 2009 – and seismic testing can have some of the most serious impacts on whales – it is too bad that the company continues to put its construction schedules behind the well-being of Western Gray Whales.  This is just one more of the failures of the Sakhalin-II project, and one more reason the project should not be supported by public and private investors.