1473339611000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fron-pernick%2Frenewables-trump-fossil-f_b_11900300.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Renewables Trump Fossil Fuels
Let me get this out right up front: I'm not a fan of Donald Trump and I won't be voting for him. Over the past year, I've been both captivated and repulsed by the Republican presidential candidate's bullying tactics, outlandish lies, and seeming joy in stirring up deep-seated hatred and fear. And when it comes to my area of professional expertise, clean tech, I've been equally frustrated and confounded. As a firm believer in the need to apply advanced technologies and smart policies in the battle against human-caused pollution and climate change, I am dismayed (though not surprised) that Trump, and the Republican Party's national platform, would take such an oppositional stance toward clean-energy solutions.

In an atmosphere of record-setting global temperatures, uncontrollable flooding and fires, and a growing chorus of business, religious, policymaker, and public support for a clean-energy transition, it makes the Republicans (at the presidential and national level at least) look antiquated and deeply out of touch.

Here are some highlights of the two major party candidates and their respective platforms on clean energy and climate change.

Hillary Clinton

Like the vast majority of scientists, believes that climate change is real and that humans are having an impact on the global climate
Supports the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gases
Embraces solar and wind energy and wants to turn the U.S. into a "renewable energy superpower"
Proposes the expansion of solar power by 700% by the end of her first term
Calls on the U.S. to generate enough electricity from renewable sources to power every American home within ten years of taking office
Has suggested the creation of a60 billion competitive grant program to incentivize states, cities and rural communities to become clean-energy leaders
Calls for the elimination of billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil and gas companies and to instead invest in clean energy

Donald Trump

Doesn't believe in climate change, has called it a hoax
Plans to rescind many of Obama's executive actions including the Climate Action Plan
Claims he will save the coal industry if he's president
Has attacked the wind industry for bird deaths, without acknowledging that buildings (like the ones with his name on them) are responsible for far more bird deaths than the wind industry
Promises to ask TransCanada to renew its permit application for the Keystone pipeline
Says he will cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. programs addressing global warming
Repeatedly talks about how "expensive" solar and wind power are, seemingly unaware of the fact that these technologies have reached cost parity across diverse geographies

Talk about an ideological chasm.

Back in 2012, Clint Wilder and I published our second book, Clean Tech Nation, which focused on how the U.S. could remain competitive in the global race toward a clean-tech future, and in which we outlined a Seven-Point Action Plan for the country. At the time, we reached out to a diverse group of politicians, businesspeople, investors, and others to provide early reviews, including those on the left, right, and in between. We were thrilled when former President Bill Clinton offered up the following assessment: "Clean Tech Nation dares to imagine a country in which bipartisanship reigns, green energy is our nation's greatest national resource, and our competitive edge in the global economy is restored."

Clinton's quote perfectly reflected some of the key themes and aspirations in our book:

Bipartisanship:
Clean energy should be treated not as a partisan divide, but as the unifying force that it is. In my June column, I highlighted the fact that red and blue states equally comprised the Top 10 states for solar and wind deployment in 2015. In polling, Americans of all political stripes and affiliations overwhelmingly support renewables. It's time that our political parties caught up with the rest of the nation.

National Resource:
The U.S. possesses a rich and diverse clean-energy resource base, spanning solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, and more. Last year, for example, solar and wind represented more than 60% of new electricity capacity additions. And for 2016, the EIA projects that utility-scale solar (not including distributed on-site solar generation) will outpace both natural gas and wind power in terms of total capacity additions, with a projected 9 GW installed. Talk about a national resource!

Economic Competitiveness:
At Clean Edge, we firmly believe that the U.S. economy remains intricately linked to breakthroughs and deployment in green buildings, renewable energy, energy storage, advanced agriculture, electrified transportation, and other emerging clean-tech sectors. China, Germany, Japan, and other nations are aggressively pursuing these industries as well, and we ignore these opportunities, from an economic perspective, at our peril.

Below is a slightly updated Seven-Point Action Plan from our 2012 book. I believe this plan still offers a strong blueprint (and insights) for a potential national clean-energy strategy.

1. Enact a National Renewable Electricity Standard of 50% by 2040
2. Create and Fund a National Smart Infrastructure Bank
3. Leverage Proven Investment Tools from Oil, Gas, and Real Estate Sectors (such as MLPs, REITs, etc.)
4. Phase out all Energy Subsidies within 10 Years (to Level the Playing Field)
5. Foster Open-Source Collaboration to Set Clean-Tech Standards
6. Fund Military Initiatives on Energy and Water Security
7. Launch Federally Backed Prizes for Clean-Tech and Climate Innovation

Based on their statements and positions, it's obvious which of the current major party candidates will support the clean-energy aspirations of the majority of Americans - Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or other. My advice: if you want to ensure that renewables continue to trump fossil fuels, vote for Hillary Clinton.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473307681000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgay-browne%2Fcage-free-free-range-past_b_11900972.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Cage-Free, Free-Range, Pasture-Raised or Organic Eggs: An Egg-ucation

"2016-09-08-1473303377-2808445-ScreenShot20160907at12.00.13PM.png"

My son Alex and his girlfriend Natalie have been raising chickens in their backyard for the past five years. So I know that depending on the breed of the hen, the color of a farm (backyard) fresh egg can naturally be white, brown, blue or even green. Alex has also taught me the colors of the egg says a lot. Eggs that are the freshest and most full of nutrients will have a bright orange and plump yolk with perfectly clear whites, while those that are not will be a pale yellow with dull, speckled whites. With such inside information and access to the freshest eggs possible, you would think I wouldn't have needed the egg-ucation I received when my friend Charli and her adorable ten-month-old baby Vivien came to visit me.

We were in the kitchen, and I was preparing breakfast. At her direction, I carefully separated the yolk from the whites. Apparently, the newest research advises that a baby not eat the egg white until they are at least a year old. While the egg yolk is loaded with nutrients, the egg white is a source of allergens.

Charli has always been organically conscientious, but even more so as a new mom. So she asked me what kinds of eggs I was using. I told her that when not gifted with those my son brings me from his chickens; I generally bought organic free-range eggs. As I cooked, Charli proceeded to tell me why that was not as good a choice as it sounded. Here's what I learned:

Cage-free and free-range sound better than they are
Cage-free and free-range might sound like the hens are free to roam but that is not necessarily so. Instead of cages, many are kept in multi-level aviaries which might allow them to spread their wings but hardly roam free. This label also does not preclude the use of antibiotics in feeding. In addition, these types of houses are much more expensive - a cost that gets passed on to the consumer. The USDA defines free-range or free-roaming as, "Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." Little information is provided about living conditions, (stocking density) and standard industry practices which keeps the consumer and chickens in the dark, literally.

Brown eggs are no healthier than any other color egg
Brown rice might be better for us than white rice, but not so with eggs. The color of the eggs, as I already knew, depends on the breed of the hen. How nutritious the egg depends on what the hens are fed and how they are raised.

Organic is open to interpretation
The USDA has created guidelines for Organic Certification so if a food product is not labeled as certified the word organic is open for interpretation. In the case of eggs, in order to meet the USDA Organic certification they must come "from uncaged hens, free to roam in their houses and have access to the outdoors." They should also be "fed an organic diet of feed produced without conventional pesticides or fertilizers." What I learned is that the tricky part here is how "access to the outdoors" is interpreted.

Pasture-raised at the grocery store is best
By the end of my egg-ucation, Charli had convinced me that the freshest, healthiest eggs came from hens raised in the most humane of conditions; such as from backyards like my son Alex and Natalie's, and local small farmers, but when those are not an option, reach for pasture-raised. According to a study by Mother Earth News, pasture-raised are the only truly free-range eggs available and also the most healthful with one-third less cholesterol, one-quarter less saturated fat, two-thirds more vitamin A, twice as many omega-3 fatty acids, three times as much Vitamin E and seven times as much beta-carotene as commercial eggs!

"2016-09-08-1473303462-6534682-ScreenShot20160907at12.04.34PM.png"

It's about more than reading labels
What I think is the most important part of the lessons Charli taught me about the best kinds of eggs to buy is that even when we are reading labels.

As I grew my company Greenopia, I became acquainted with the term LOHAS, which stands for Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability. This market which includes brands, products and services from organic food to fuel efficient cars is now estimated to be over $209 billion in the US alone. It's understandable that many people want to tap into that. I also learned of a rather deceptive practice known as greenwashing - in which a consumer will be led to think the product or service is truly green, but when you look deeper into it - as in the case of cage-free eggs - that is not the case.

Don't be greenwashed
So it's about more than reading labels. It's about being a conscious consumer and educating yourself, so you know what the labels mean - whether it's from some of my favorite resources like EWG, TreeHugger, and Mother Nature Network or good friends like Charli whose only vested interest is in raising a healthy, toxin free child. The key is always to be living with a green heart - especially in our own kitchen.

"2016-09-08-1473303605-526549-FullSizeRender8.jpg"

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473288303000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fadam-m-roberts%2Fwhat-kind-of-person-still_b_11889086.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
What Kind of Person Still Traps Wild Animals?
What kind of person purposely destroys a beaver dam and sets a "wall of death" of Conibear traps, knowing that the unsuspecting beavers will return to repair their handiwork--only to be possibly smashed across their abdomens and drowned?

What kind of person watches a tethered and helpless coyote writhe in pain and distress, unable to move because of the intensely unforgiving steel jaws clamped to her paw, kicks her in the side, and then finally shoots her in the chest so that her lungs fill with blood, and she dies a miserable, suffocating death?

What kind of person knows that these atrocities occur regularly across America--still, in 2016--and does nothing?

Today, Born Free USA has revealed our second undercover investigation, Victims of Vanity II, which delves into the brutal trapping industry and fur trade in an effort to expose these grotesque and indefensible industries. Trapping, like hunting, is dominated by people engaged in "sport" and "recreation," not necessity. And, even if there is some commercial by-product--selling the furs--trapping is about vicious slaughter, not gainful employment.

Our investigator hit the traplines in New York and Iowa, and discovered beaver dams destroyed; traps and bait set illegally; traps set close to public bridges, roads, and trails; horrific drown poles deployed; trapping in protected areas; prolonged suffering; and brutal death.

What kind of person does this? A man looking for power over helpless animals to feel more manly? A small-minded person who resorts to archaic cruelty to sell a few furs and make a few dollars? A killer? A torturer?

I remember when I first started working in the animal protection movement in Washington, D.C. in 1991. For the first time, I was exposed to the horrors of trapping. "What kind of person does this?," I thought. And, how can it still be legal? Here I am, 25 years later, asking the same questions.

Thankfully, change can come. Congress has multiple means by which to tackle trapping. It could end trapping on national wildlife refuges; eliminate the interstate commerce in the most commonly used traps; and stop federal employees from using traps on federal lands.

U.S. Senator Cory Booker had it exactly right when he said that these "traps operate by slamming shut with bone-crushing force on any animal that trips the device. Terrified animals break legs, chew off limbs, dislocate shoulders, and tear muscles as they try to break free of these traps."

We need federal action and state action (and not just in New York and Iowa). We need consumer action to stop buying furs and corporate action to stop selling them. We need to abandon the concept that trapping has a place in modern society and that trapping with a device like the steel-jaw leghold trap--which has remained relatively unchanged for 400 years--is okay. We need to stop defending the indefensible.

I'm proud that we can offer this eye-opening insight into what happens on the trapline. Some people won't be able to watch it. Some in the media will think that it is too painful to show on television. I get it.

What kind of person traps? What kind of legislator or department store owner can watch just 60 seconds of a tethered, tortured, dying coyote and do nothing? You be the judge.

No more excuses. Either you defend wild furbearer torture or you work to end it. I know which side I'm on. I know what kind of person I am.

Keep Wildlife in the Wild,

Adam

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473288301000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjason-clay%2Ffeeding-the-people-saving-the-planet_b_11817682.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Feeding The People, Saving The Planet
If we want to save species, stop deforestation, and preserve nature for the good of biodiversity and humans, there's one thing we've got to get right above all else: where and how we produce food.

Local products in La Cocha, Colombia. Photo Credit: © Diego M. Garces / WWF

Producing food has had the biggest impact on the planet for the longest period of time than any other human activity. Food has the unique distinction of both contributing to climate change and being profoundly affected by it. And unlike any other issue conservationists work on, we've got 7.4 billion food experts on this planet, each with strong opinions and very few using science to inform their views.

Today, these 7.4 billion people are already consuming Earth's resources at a rate that is not renewable. Humanity's inexhaustible demand for certain foods drives deforestation, habitat conversion, water degradation, human rights violations, and a host of illegal activities. If this is happening today, imagine what the planet will look like in 40 years when the population is expected to be nearly 10 billion.

But this isn't just a numbers game. As important as the additional mouths to feed are what they will be eating. Incomes are on the rise, especially in developing countries, and Western diets are becoming increasingly common. Per capita consumption of animal protein, calorie-dense foods, off-season food and more fresh fruits and vegetables will increase dramatically. This increasing and shifting demand will place an even greater burden on food production and on our finite planet's dwindling resources.

On Sept. 6 at the World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, I discussed the link between biodiversity and food production, and how in order to make a real impact conserving biodiversity, we have to change how our food is produced. The link is an obvious one--at least once people remember that food isn't actually produced in the supermarket. Every calorie we consume, from fresh food to junk food, comes from ingredients that have to be grown, raised, hunted, or caught. And that all takes resources.

Food production is the largest cause of habitat conversion (including deforestation), biodiversity loss, and, depending on the source, the number one or two cause of greenhouse gas emissions. It also is the largest user of chemicals and of freshwater. In fact, producing food uses twice as much water as all other human activities combined.

The bottom line is: can we feed everyone and still have a planet? The short answer is "yes," definitely. The long answer is very long. And very complicated.

There is no silver bullet, no single strategy that will work--we will need to focus on productivity and efficiency as well as waste and consumption. And we will need everyone to pitch in. The world won't be saved by a few forward-thinking consumers, brands, NGOs or even governments.

In the last 10 years especially, food sustainability has become a marketing issue. That's the wrong approach. Sustainability needs to be considered at the beginning, with the production or raw materials. Major players in every industry need to take action to make sure that its raw materials are produced legally and sustainably.

For every crop, better producers globally are 100 times more productive than worse ones. Even within a country or region, producers can be 10 times more efficient than their neighbors. So conservation groups have to get beyond just working with the groups that are interested in sustainability or devising systems that reward the best producers. This will not make the change happen that we need either at speed or at the scale needed. The biggest impacts and the least production happen with the bad actors, the poorer performers. We gain most--in production, income and reduced impacts--by improving the poorest-performing producers not by rewarding the best.

On the consumption side, no one is able to tell 7.4 billion people what they should and shouldn't eat. But, we can make people aware of the impacts of their choices--what it means to the planet when we throw away 1 of every 3 calories produced. Even around what people eat the issue is about making informed choices and shifting your lifestyle in other ways to accommodate those choices that are the most demanding on the planet.

In addition to what we consume and what we do directly or through market signals to make our diets more sustainable, many on the planet do not have our choices. While we have enough food at the level of the planet, many do not have enough food on their plate. There are 800 million people who don't have enough to eat. The irony is that the bulk of them are from farm families. This problem can be solved but it is not just about producing more food or reducing waste. It's about inequality.

And, throw in the wrench of climate change and weather variability and we've definitely got our work cut out for us.

Feeding everyone -- while still making sure we have a planet that can sustain life -- will not be easy, but it is possible. And, we don't really have a choice. No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. Think about it, and then act on it--every day.

This post is part of a series on the World Conservation Congress taking place this week. Held every four years, it brings together about 6,000 people, including heads of state, government officials, business leaders, representatives from indigenous groups, scientists, academics, influencers, educators, artists and NGOs, from all over the world to discuss and decide on solutions to the world's most pressing environmental challenges. To read all the posts in this series click here.

Aerial view of palm oil plantation on deforested land, Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia. Photo Credit: © naturepl.com / Juan Carlos Munoz / WWF

Aerial view of oil palm plantation. Sungai Petani vicinity, Kedah, Malaysia. Photo Credit: © naturepl.com / Tim Laman / WWF

Deforestation in southern Scotland near Edinburgh, UK. Photo Credit: © Edward Parker / WWF

A farmer carrying rice to be planted in Bandung, Java, Indonesia. Photo Credit: © Rob Webster / WWF

A cereal crop growing near Jumilla in Murcia, Spain. Photo Credit: © Global Warming Images / WWF

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473288297000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F09%2F07%2Fstanding-with-standing-rock-and-the-right-to-clean-water%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Standing With Standing Rock and the Right to Clean Water

By Jon Waterhouse and Mary Marshall

Examine the protests over construction of the Dakota Access pipeline with an objective mind (links below, basic facts here) and you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Native Americans gathered at Standing Rock care—and shouldn't we all.

The threat at Standing Rock is not lack of oil or loss of jobs.

The threat is to the one element that none—yes, none—of us can live without: WATER.

"(Photo — Protecting clean water isn't about scenery. It's about basic human rights. (Photo by Mary Marshall)

I realize that for most readers this is not “in your backyard,” but shouldn't you care enough to support those at Standing Rock to protect something this vital, this important to us all?

The United Nations has recognized the human right to clean water.

Ask yourself what will it take for you to engage in the protection of this resource that makes your latte, fills your pool, allows for fishing and your morning shower, is a major ingredient in beer and wine, beauty products, your supplements and medications, vital to agriculture and many forms of manufacturing … and on and on?

What will it take?

Don't leave the Native Americans to carry this by themselves.

Look around, ask yourself, ask your friends: What will it take and when will we engage?

Standing Rock Coverage From Across the Web

Dakota Access Pipeline: What You Need to Know (Nat Geo Education Blog)

Topic Page From Indian Country Today

Why is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe trying to stop a pipeline? (Christian Science Monitor)

Showdown over oil pipeline becomes a national movement for Native Americans (Washington Post)

A Pipeline Fight and America's Dark Past (New Yorker)

Taking a Stand at Standing Rock (New York Times)

MSNBC:

gaia

1473288295000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmichael-brune%2Fapec-blue-and-g20-green_b_11897722.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
APEC Blue And G20 Green

In advance of last week's G20 economic summit, the skies over the city of Hangzhou, China, turned “APEC Blue” ― a phrase that was coined by residents of Beijing when the Asian Pacific Economic Conference was held there eight years ago. Factories were closed, traffic was restricted, and air pollution ― temporarily ― vanished. President Obama and the leaders of 19 other major global economies got to see one of China's most beautiful cities at its sparkling best.

Now that the summit is over, the pollution will return. If it's ever going to disappear for good, then the G20 leaders who met in Hangzhou will need to follow through on a commitment they made seven years ago: to stop providing subsidies for fossil fuel development.

Together, the nations that are part of the G20 are currently responsible for more than $440 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually and account for 74 percent of global carbon pollution. To put that into perspective, the annual total of G20 subsidies to support fossil fuels is more than four times what the entire global economy is currently investing in clean energy. Given the urgency of transitioning the global economy awayfrom fossil fuels, that's counterproductive, to say the least.

Internationally, we've seen historic climate progress lately ― from the agreement between the U.S. and China to limit carbon pollution to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, which China and the U.S. both formally joined last week. But while the world moves forward toward a 100 percent clean energy economy, the G20 leaders have been all talk and no walk on ending fossil-fuel subsidies for seven years now.

That's got to stop. For our part, the Sierra Club has launched a new international campaign called Fossil-Free Finance. Our goal is to get all of the G20 countries, the World Bank, and other key international financial institutions to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

This year's G20 has come and gone, but this issue isn't going anywhere. Send a message to President Obama and the other G20 leaders to let them know that the only way we'll see blue skies everywhere, all the time, is to stop investing in the dirty fuels of the past.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1473288293000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsteve-horn%2Fcompany-led-by-donald-trumps-energy-aide-says-its_b_11897732.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
This Trump Aide Stands To Profit From The Dakota Access Pipeline

Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog

Continental Resources — the company founded and led by CEO Harold Hamm, energy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign and potential U.S. Secretary of Energy under a Trump presidency — has announced to investors that oil it obtains via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) from North Dakota's Bakken Shale basin is destined for transport through the hotly-contested Dakota Access pipeline.

Image Credit: Continental Resources

The company's 37-page September 2016 Investor Update presentation walks investors in the publicly-traded company through various capital expenditure and profit-margin earning scenarios. It also features five slides on the Bakken Shale, with the fifth one named “CLR Bakken Differentials Decreasing Through Increased Pipeline Capacity” honing in on Dakota Access, ETCOP and how the interconnected lines relate to Continental's marketing plans going forward.

In a section of that slide titled, “Bakken Takeaway Capacity” a bar graph points out that the opening of Dakota Access would allow more barrels of Continental's Bakken fracked oil to flow through pipelines.

Dakota Access is slated to carry the fracked Bakken oil across South Dakota, Iowa and into Patoka, Illinois. From there, it will connect to the company's Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline (ETCOP ) line, which terminates in Nederland, Texas at the Sunoco Logistics-owned refinery.

From Keystone XL to Dakota Access

Previously, Harold Hamm was as an outspoken supporter of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, deploying the lobbying group he founded named the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance to advocate for KXL and a Bakken on-ramp which would connect to it. Once he realized the northern leg was doomed politically, Hamm began singing a different tune on Keystone.

“We're supporting other pipelines out there, we're not waiting on Keystone. Nobody is,” Hamm, also an energy adviser to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, told Politico in November 2014. “That thing … needed action on it six years ago. I just think it's too late and we need to move on.”

One of those ‘other pipelines' Hamm appears to have taken an interest in is Dakota Access (DAPL). Although to date, neither Hamm nor Trump have commented publicly on the DAPL project. Continental Resources told DeSmog that it does not comment on pipeline shipping contracts.

As The Intercept's Lee Fang pointed out in a recent article, some oil from Dakota Access could feed export markets, despite Energy Transfer's claims in a presentation that it will feature “100% Domestic produced crude” that “supports 100% domestic consumption.”

Hamm's Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, as revealed in a December 2015 DeSmog investigation, led the successful public relations and lobbying campaign charge for lifting the crude oil export ban.

The battle over the fate of Dakota Access has pitted Native American Tribes, environmentalists and libertarian private property rights supporters against Energy Transfer Partners and state- and federal-level agencies which have permitted the project.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe awaits a decision by a Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, set for September 9.

“Hamm is an oil profiteer exploiting the health of the water, farmland, and communities in the Dakotas and all downstream,” Angie Carter of the Women, Food and Agriculture Network — one of the over 30 groups comprising the Iowa-based Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition — told DeSmog. “In Iowa, we've called upon both Trump and Clinton to speak out against the pipeline.”

Like Trump, Clinton has yet to comment on the pipeline.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia