By Peter Anderson

Landfills, the current destination for a majority of our trash, are a major source of methane.

Recent accounts that have filtered back to Climate Progress from Rio+20 suggested satisfaction with a World Bank Report concluding “Integrated waste management” (which purports to prioritize recycling over landfilling), is being implemented in the developed countries.

We have been left with the impression it is just the undeveloped world landfills still present a problem.

But, stripped of its window dressing, “integrated” is just bureaucratic speak for a blank check to the U.S. disposal industry. Sagaciously, the national firms duly consider all options, and then,\ select the one that is most profitable to them (other than in green cities that insist upon better than that). Morgan Stanley Dean Witter reports that the industry’s view is: “recycling has long been the enemy of the solid waste industry, stealing volumes otherwise headed for landfills … their most promising assets.”

Fortunately, one organization did not ignore the waste sector. In 2009, the Sierra Club undertook a year-long due diligence. Peeling back the onion layers, its technical experts found that industry’s claims – that their operators captured most of the methane generated in landfills, and that landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) miraculously converted lemons into lemonade – were as bogus as the ethanol deceit. In fact, landfills were responsible for almost five times more GHG emissions than understood. Attempts to recover energy from inherently low Btu and dirty gas only made bad things worse.

Methane is so potent a greenhouse gas, even small leaks from major generators of methane are a huge concern – depending how much escapes.

Major volume of methane generated

Over the 100 years or so that landfills generate gas, methane equivalent to roughly 472 million tons of carbon dioxide will be generated from just one year of municipal trash in the U.S. That is a third more than from heating and cooling all of the homes in the country.

Most landfill gas escapes

Read more

Using The Clean Air Act To Cut Aviation Emissions And Create An Alternative To The European Union Emissions Trading System

By Nathan Richardson, Samuel Grausz

International aviation generates more than 3 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions per year. This amount is relatively small but growing quickly, with worldwide aviation emissions projected to increase 300 percent to 700 percent by 2050. Until recently the sector faced no limits on these emissions. But starting this year, 2012, the European Union began regulating emissions from all flights to and from EU airports. Crucially, the European Union law covers both foreign and EU airlines and their emissions produced over their entire flight path, not just over EU airspace.

The new law, which is opposed by much of the aviation industry, has led to an ongoing legal and diplomatic conflict with the United States and other countries and threatens to trigger a trade war. Opponents contend that the law violates Europe’s international obligations and will substantially increase aviation costs. Supporters argue that the law is legal and will do little to harm airlines and could even benefit them in the short run. (We discuss the economic impacts in greater detail in our first Blue Skies Project report, “Is the Sky Falling for Airline Projects in the European Union?”)

Many U.S. airlines and the U.S. government have been leading opponents of the EU law. Three U.S. airlines and their trade association pursued legal claims against the EU that the European Court of Justice ultimately rejected in late 2011. The U.S. aviation industry is also calling on the federal government to challenge the EU law in international court. The U.S. government helped to convene two meetings (in Delhi, India and in Moscow) of opponents of the EU law and spearheaded a resolution in the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, declaring the EU law illegal.

Despite this opposition, the U.S. airlines and government have so far complied with the EU law, unlike China and India, who refuse to allow their airlines to comply. In retaliation, China also recently cancelled an order of airplanes from European plane manufacturer Airbus. The U.S. stance could soon change: In October 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would prevent U.S. airlines from complying with the EU law. The U.S. Senate held hearings on the measure in June. The conflict with the EU could quickly escalate into a trade war and do significant harm to the weak U.S. and European economies.

Read more

The top two corporations on the Fortune 500 Global ranking, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, announced their 2012 second-quarter earnings today, bringing the total profits for three Big Oil companies to $44 billion for 2012 or $250 million every day this year. Exxon profited by $16 billion this quarter, bringing its earnings for 2012 to $25 billion.

The New York Times wrote that Exxon and Shell’s earnings “disappoint,” because energy prices unexpectedly dropped for consumers this summer. Put their profits in the appropriate context, however, and Exxon and Shell still made a combined $160,000 per minute last quarter, even though the top five oil companies benefit from $2.4 billion federal tax breaks every year.

Below we look at what Exxon and Shell spends its earnings on:

ExxonMobil:

– Exxon spent 42 percent — or $10.7 billion — of its 2012 profits buying back its stock, which enriches executives and largest shareholders.

– Exxon has spent $17 million lobbying for the past 18 months, making it the top spender in the oil and gas industry. It has spent more than $52 million lobbying for the first three years of the Obama presidency, 50 percent more than in the Bush administration.

– Exxon is sitting on $18 billion in cash reserves.

– Exxon send federal candidates $1.3 million in campaign contributions so far this campaign cycle, sending 91 percent to Republicans.

– Exxon paid just 13 percent in federal taxes last year, lower than the average American family. Right after Mitt Romney, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the top recipient of Exxon federal contributions.

– Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.

Royal Dutch Shell:

– Shell will start drilling in the Arctic this summer, but its oil spill response plan is still behind schedule. It’s off to an inauspicious start in the Arctic, recently losing control of an Arctic drilling rig.

– Shell has spent nearly $22 million for the past 18 months, making it the second-biggest spender of the oil and gas industry.

– Shell has more than $17.3 billion in cash reserves.

– Shell bought back 15 percent of its second-quarter profits, or $900 million.

– Shell CEO Peter Voser’s compensation more than doubled in 2011 to $15.3 million. His salary increased (in euros) by 113 percent.

– In its annual report, Shell noted that the number of oil spills increased from 195 in 2010 to 207 during 2011.

While these companies already benefit from billions in tax breaks, Mitt Romney has offered the industry even more. A Center for American Progress Action analysis finds that Romney’s tax plan could lower five companies’ annual tax bill by another $2.3 billion, virtually doubling what they already receive in tax breaks.

Chevron and BP are the last two of the Big Oil companies to announce profits.