About Allison Fisher

Posts by Allison Fisher:

To change everything, we need everyone on board

What we know:

* Climate change is happening now and having real consequences on our lives, natural habitats and economies.

Seemingly every week new evidence emerges to reinforce the clear and present danger of climate change.

Just this week, the National Climatic Data Center reported that the Earth as a whole had its fourth-hottest month on record in July and the world’s oceans had the warmest month on record.

It is these types of persistently warmer temperatures that, according to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), are contributing to disturbing new trends in America’s outdoor experience. A new report issued this week by NWF, which examines the impact of warmer temperatures, stronger storms, and changes in habitat on eight species, literally demonstrates that you can see the impact of climate change in your backyard:

Toxic algae outbreaks like the one that poisoned drinking water in Lake Erie are becoming worse and more frequent; Deer ticks, tiger mosquitoes and fire ants are becoming more widespread as a result of warmer temperatures and milder winters; and More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is accelerating the growth and increasing the abundance of poison ivy.

  * We have existing and affordable solutions that will enable us to move away from our dependency on climate causing energy sources – we cannot afford the cost of inaction.

In April, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the third and final report in a series from the United Nations’ climate science body detailing the evidence of man-made climate change, the risks it poses and the range of solutions available to slow it down. More

Standing Up for Bold Climate Action

, , , ,

Tuesday marked the beginning of a series of public hearings on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule to limit carbon emissions from our nation’s power sector. The hearings took place over the course of four days in Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

The proposal – and subject of the public forums – aims to cut overall carbon pollution from existing power plants to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, a goal the U.S. is already halfway to achieving. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration data, current carbon emissions from the energy sector have fallen nearly 15 percent from 2005.

That’s why the proposal not only is achievable, but we can do much better. In fact, the science demands – and our technological advancements allow for – a more aggressive plan to cut climate-causing pollution.

Public Citizen staff and activists turned out to each hearing to deliver to the EPA the message that we all support an aggressive plan that uses our vast renewable energy sources and cost-saving efficiency technologies to address the largest source of U.S. climate altering pollution (power plants).

Public Citizen Standing up to Dirty Energy, Standing up for Consumers and the Climate:

On the first day of testimony in Denver, I told the EPA that “Public Citizen supports strong carbon emissions regulations. The unlimited dumping of carbon into our atmosphere has led to a global climate crisis. We can no longer afford inaction or half measures. We urge the EPA to strengthen its proposed plan by adequately reflecting the role of energy efficiency and renewable energy in transitioning to a clean and affordable energy economy.”

Allison Fisher testifying at the EPA hearing in Denver on July 29.
Allison Fisher testifying at the EPA hearing in Denver

That same day in Atlanta, Public Citizen member, Albert Roesel, a retired teacher, told the EPA, “I have been distraught watching this climate catastrophe cascading in the late years of my life, having grown up with the idea that each generation is obligated to leave succeeding generations better off, knowing that instead, we have loaded the dice against the dreams of our children. Now with EPA’s Clean Power Plan, I have a glimmer of hope. It’s not enough, but it’s a start.”

More

A Predictable Reaction to Climate Action

, ,

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposal for the first-ever standard to reduce carbon pollution from our existing fleet of fossil fuel-fired power plants – the largest source of U.S. climate changing emissions.

It has been labeled an historic moment for clean air regulation but was met by a classic knee-jerk reaction from industry and  the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose lack of credibility on the proposed rule begins with its continued refusal to acknowledge human activity as a contributor to climate change.

Despite being widely considered modest and highly achievable, even by many electric utilities, the carbon standard was greeted – like all the clean air regulations that have preceded it – with the same unfounded hysteria by a few invested industries and political operatives looking out for their narrow self-interest.

The fossil fuel industry has been predicting economic doom and gloom as a result of Clean Air Act safeguards for decades, but those predictions have never come to pass.  In fact, a series of studies led by Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson has found that implementing the CAA has actually increased the size of the U.S. economy.

Moreover, the total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to more than 40 times the costs of regulation. For every one dollar we have spent, we get more than $40 of benefits in return.

And the regulation to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants is getting the same doomsday predictions but will likely have the same positive returns. The draft rule, based on EPA analysis for public health benefits alone, would yield between $55 billion to $93 billion in benefits when it is fully implemented, with 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths avoided and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks a year avoided. The cost, by contrast, would be $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion. That’s a bargain.

Even before the standard was introduced, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was making wild claims that the regulation of carbon would result in skyrocketing prices and devastating job loss. The Chamber even issued a report outlandishly claiming the rule More

BP trial should offer a renewed opportunity to deal with the failings of offshore regulations and oversight

The first phase of BP’s civil trial, which concluded in April 2013, was intended to apportion blame between BP and its contractors and determine whether any or all of those companies acted with gross negligence leading up to the rig explosion in April 2010.

The second phase of the three-part BP civil trial, which began last week, is to determine how much oil spilled from the blown-out well, whether BP prepared enough for an accident like the well explosion, and if the company responded correctly once oil began to spill.

There is a lot at stake in this case. For BP, it is the size of the fine that will be levied under the Clean Water Act. For the government, which it trying to secure the maximum penalty for BP, the case will underscore its efficacy in holding corporations accountable for harm.

But equally important is whether the information and evidence brought to light in this trial will be applied to the offshore drilling industry and used by the agencies and decisionmakers responsible for protecting our workers, wildlife and waters from inherent dangerous drilling activity.

The bulk of phase two of the trial – for which the judge has allotted 12 of the 16 days the trial is expected to take – will focus on the question of how much oil spewed into the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded.

The government is arguing that 4.2 million barrels of oil was discharged into the Gulf over 87 days. BP is claiming that the number was closer to 2.45 million barrels.

Clean Water Act fines range from a maximum of $1,100 for every barrel spilled through simple negligence to as much as $4,300 a barrel if a company is found to have been grossly negligent.

If U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier agrees with the government that there was gross negligence and that 4.2 million barrels was spilled, the fines could amount to more than $18 billion.

Examining whether BP prepared enough for this type of accident and whether the company responded properly to the spill will occupy less of the court’s time but should reopen discussion around the adequacy of both offshore drilling safeguards and government oversight of the drilling industry. More

Three reasons the court should reject Halliburton’s plea agreement

Today, a federal judge will decide whether to approve a plea agreement that calls for Halliburton Energy Services to pay a trivial $200,000 fine for destroying evidence after BP’s 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The judge should reject the deal.

Here’s why:

1)      The misdemeanor charge does not reflect the seriousness of the offense.

Halliburton concedes that employees twice erased computer simulations that undercut the company’s argument about the causes of the disaster.

Destruction of evidence can lead to multiple felony counts, including obstruction of justice. The evidence that was intentionally deleted is material to the cause of the Macondo well blowout, which led to an explosion that killed 11 men and the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history. In response the plea agreement between the Department of Justice and Halliburton Energy Services Inc., Southwestern Law School professor, Kelly Strader said, “Given the scale of the harm caused by the oil spill, it seems surprising that the government would accept a plea to a relatively minor charge.”

Though the joint memorandum submitted by the U.S. government and Halliburton Energy Services Inc. cites a decision by the Southern District of Texas in which the court opines that a court may not reject a plea proposed under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) on the grounds that it fails to charge a sufficiently severe crime and goes on to suggest that a court must “defer to the government’s position except under extraordinary circumstances,” a body of case law exists that challenges the constraints, imposed by corporate plea agreements, on judges’ sentencing functions and their ability to administer justice and protect the public interest.

2)      The fine associated with the charged offense is paltry and will not deter future criminal conduct for the corporation or other corporate actors.

In response to the Halliburton plea agreement, Robert Weisberg, law professor and director of Stanford Law School’s criminal justice center, asserted,  “One might read this as a deterrent in the reverse sense, in that it strongly encourages future corporate defendants to admit guilt, make separate unconditional payouts and cooperate like crazy, with the ‘carrot’ being a mere misdemeanor conviction.” More

Load More