A recent paper published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment asks, “Are forest offsets an effective way to address climate change, and do they provide other benefits?”
In July 2017, California voted to extend its cap-and-trade scheme until 2030. Some environmental groups and the oil and gas industry support the legislation. Environmental justice groups oppose it. This post summarises some of the responses to the continuation of cap-and-trade in California.
On 17 July 2017, California’s Assembly and Senate voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade legislation until 2030. AB 398, written with the help of the oil industry, passed with two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Environmental justice groups opposed the bill, because it gives away far to much to the big oil and gas companies, and does too little to address the pollution that affects vulnerable communities in California.
On 30 June 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a legal complaint against Renwick Haddow. The SEC alleges that Haddow fraudulently raised almost US$38 million from investors. The SEC has obtained an emergency asset freeze against Haddow and his companies named in the complaint.
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) expires in 2020. California’s governor, Jerry Brown, is holding a series of closed-door negotiations with the fossil fuel industry to re-write California’s climate change policy for the period 2021 to 2030.
Since January 2017, REDD-Monitor has written a series of posts about Renwick Haddow’s latest investment scheme, Bar Works, a New York-based co-working startup company. Last week, Law360 reported that Bar Works “is now the subject of at least two lawsuits from investors who call it a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme”.
From 26 to 28 May 2017, a meeting took place in Xapuri, in the state of Acre, Brazil. The meeting brought together Apurinã, Huni Kui, Jaminawa, Manchineri and Shawadawa indigenous peoples, representatives of traditional communities, rubber tappers, academics and supporting organisations. The meeting’s theme was, “The effects of environmental / climatic policies on traditional populations”.
Last week, Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Governor of California, Jerry Brown reacted swiftly on a press call organised by the World Resources Institute. Brown called Trump’s decision “tragic”, “wrong”, “misguided”, “insane”, and “deviant behaviour”.
Yesterday, Donald Trump announced that the US would pull out of the Paris Agreement. His statement is riddled with mistakes, misleading statements, and utter nonsense.
On 1 June 2017 Donald Trump announced that the US has left the Paris Agreement. Yesterday, I wrote that there were two ways of leaving: leaving the Paris Agreement (which would take four years); or leaving the UNFCCC (which would take one year). Trump isn’t taking either of these options. Instead, Trump is taking what Richard Black on the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit website calls the “truly nuclear option”.
This afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump is due to announce whether the US will leave the Paris Agreement. Predictably enough, Trump revealed the time and place via a tweet. According to Jonathan Swan at Axios, Trump has already decided to leave the Paris Agreement.
Franklin Kinard sent out another email update yesterday. It’s posted in full below. Kinard is leaving Bar Works. In January 2017, when Konrad Putzer wrote about Bar Works on the New York property website The Real Deal, Jonathan Black was listed as CEO and co-founder. Within weeks, Black’s name was replaced by Kinard’s on Bar Works’ company documents.