Briefly

Stuff that matters


Shall we sundance?

Sundance is shining a spotlight on climate change this year.

The film festival, running Jan. 19–29 in Park City, Utah, will showcase several films about the environment, including An Inconvenient Sequel, the follow-up to the award-winning 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Like the original, the sequel highlights Al Gore’s climate activism, but with more of a focus on solutions.

The festival will also premiere 13 other documentaries, short films, and special projects concerning the planet. The documentary Water & Power: A California Heist is an exposé on Stewart and Lynda Resnick, the billionaire couple sucking California’s water supply dry. The short film The Diver is about a man who swims through Mexico City’s sewer system dislodging clogs.

There will also be a virtual-reality experience “that turns participants into a tree that is violently chopped down,” the New York Times reports.

Although Robert Redford, founder of Sundance, said the festival stays “free of politics,” it will certainly have a political tinge this year, as it will take place right as a climate denier ascends to the White House.

The festival’s program directors said they decided last summer to focus on environmental films. The goal: “To change the world,” programmer Trevor Groth told the Times with a grin.


Oh say, can you DNC?

Climate activists are rooting for Keith Ellison to head up the Democratic National Committee.

Democratic Party insiders will vote for a new chair this weekend. The winner will get the tough job of trying to rebuild a damaged party.

Ten people are in the running, but the victor is likely to be one of the top two contenders: Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison or former Labor Secretary Tom Perez. Ellison backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary last year, and Sanders is backing Ellison in this race. In 2012 and 2015, Ellison and Sanders teamed up to push a bill to end subsidies for fossil fuel companies.

Climate activist (and Grist board member) Bill McKibben argues that Ellison, a progressive who is “from the movement wing,” would help the party regain credibility with young people.

A coalition of millennial leaders endorsed Ellison this week, including a number of activists from climate groups. “We want a chair who will fight to win a democracy for all and overcome the profound crises of our time — from catastrophic climate change to systemic racism, historic economic inequality to perpetual war,” they wrote.

350 Action, the political arm of climate group 350.org, endorsed Ellison earlier this month:

And Jane Kleeb, a prominent anti-Keystone activist and a voting DNC member, is backing Ellison too:

 


dakota access

Standing Rock is burning.

About 150 people voluntarily left the last occupied resistance camp by Wednesday at 2:00 p.m., the state-issued deadline to clear camps built to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline. The remaining water protectors joined members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in setting fire to tents according to tribal tradition — one last blaze of defiance against the pipeline.

Police likely arrested around 50 people, and around 25 to 50 water protectors still remained in the evacuation zone after the 2:00 p.m. deadline. North Dakota law enforcement entered the camps again this morning to clear out anyone who still remained. Ruth Hopkins, a journalist with Indian Country Media Network, reported law enforcement pointing rifles at people and knifing tipis.

On Feb. 20, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe asked all water protectors to peacefully vacate the camps by yesterday, maintaining that the battle is now in court and on the streets. On Feb. 15, the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes asked a court to reverse a final easement that would allow the disputed portion of the pipeline to be built. And on March 10, the tribes will rally for the Rise With Standing Rock Native Nations March on Washington.

When the 150 water protectors left camp on Wednesday, they marched out holding an American flag hung upside down.


Exxon knows

Exxon just decided to keep a big chunk of its tar sands in the ground.

In a press release, the company said that oil prices are so low that it’s simply not profitable to dig up and process the 3.5 billion barrels of fuel buried in one of Canada’s highest-quality deposits of oil sands. That’s a huge amount, as much as the entire petroleum consumption of the United States for six months.

Exxon has long resisted calls to erase these reserves from its books, insisting that it would dig up the tar sands someday, according to Inside Climate News. When a company erases an investment off the books, it’s effectively saying, “We bought something that’s now worthless.” This isn’t an easy thing to admit.

But plenty of companies are fessing up. Last week, ConocoPhillips wiped a billion barrels of oil sands off its books; in November, Norway’s Statoil said it was getting out of the Canadian oil sands business; and in 2015, Royal Dutch Shell fled another big oil sands project, which knocked a $2 billion dent in its bottom line. All told, oil companies have “delayed or canceled at least 64 projects in Alberta’s oil sands” since 2014.

What’s behind all this? Low oil prices. In other words, the market is convincing companies to keep these fossil fuels in the ground. Add climate regulations on top of that, and it could be the death of tar-sands development.


You've got emails

Here are some of the most unnerving things we’ve read so far in those Pruitt emails.

Scott Pruitt, new EPA administrator, had cozy ties with energy companies while serving as Oklahoma’s attorney general, as the New York Times reported in 2014 and again this week. The Center for Media and Democracy just got ahold of thousands of emails from Pruitt’s time as AG. A few choice tidbits:

Pruitt’s office asked a VP at Devon Energy, a big oil and gas company, how it should comment on an EPA report on methane emissions:

“I thought we should insert a sentence or two regarding the recent EPA report … Any suggestions?” wrote Clayton Eubanks from the AG’s office.

Pruitt’s chief of staff asked for a personal favor from another Devon VP:

“My boys are out of school and my father is in town from NC so we are playing tourist in OKC today. One of the things the boys wanted to do was to go to the top of the Devon tower. I know it’s shocking—but I’ve actually never been in the tower … ;)” wrote Melissa McLawhorn Houston.

And that same Devon VP invited Pruitt’s chief of staff out for lunch at a swanky restaurant:

“Reservations are set for 11:45 at Cheevers,” Devon’s Allen Wright wrote to Houston.

If you’re looking forward to another email saga that just won’t end, you’re in luck. The Center for Media and Democracy expects to make another dump on Feb. 27.


Sound & Fury

Congressional climate deniers are getting called on their BS at town halls this week.

It turns out plenty of their constituents DO care about climate change, clean water, and environmental regulation, and they’re using the Congressional recess to make their voices heard.

Take, for example, Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, who probably expected a friendly reception from a Trump-supporting town in his district. Instead, reports the Washington Post, more than 150 people crowded into a small room to grill Brat on everything from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Flint water crisis.

When asked if he denies climate change, Brat tried to joke, “No, the climate changes all the time.” The angry crowd yelled back: “Answer the question!” And then there was this:

Want to make sure your representative gets the same message while on break from Washington? You can find a list of town hall meetings here — assuming they haven’t been canceled by politicians afraid of straight talk from their constituents.


The Atlantis Seaboard

Maybe this is the century that America erects giant Atlantic seawalls.

And Boston could get the building started, as city officials are considering a massive barrier across Boston Harbor to prevent flooding from a swelling Atlantic Ocean. For now, however, it’s just an idea. JakartaVenice, and New Orleans are already building giant walls in the hope of holding back rising seas.

Boston has plenty at stake. Future floods could cost the city $80 billion worth of real estate and put the lives of 90,000 people at risk, according to forecasts. Which is why planners say the gigantic new piece of infrastructure is necessary — and of course it won’t come cheap.

Estimates say a simple barrier could run anywhere from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars. Yet if it’s anything like Boston’s previous projects — and the Boston Globe says it “could rival the Big Dig in complexity and cost” — it will be at least five times more expensive and prove a political headache.

Either way, it would be cheaper than doing nothing.