Todd Buhrows’ Post

When we say our industry, jobs, families, states, and nation are under attack, we're not kidding. Misinformed and inflamed radical "environmentalists" "win" again. Every American loses. #oilgas #Montana #climate #emissions #hydrocarbons

Check out my latest advisory on the evolving landscape of state climate change Superfund bills. Discover how states are legislating corporate responsibility for climate change, and controversially shifting the costs for domestic and international climate change policies onto companies in extractive industries through mandatory contributions to state superfunds. 💰 Dive into the details and stay ahead of the curve on these critical changes. 📈 #ClimateChange #EnvironmentalLaw #Sustainability #LegalAdvisory #Superfund #Fossilfuel

Last month, the federal government amended the IAA – and the changes mean that major projects can no longer be rejected based on their climate impacts. This means that we’ll no longer be able to get a project reviewed based on its climate impacts, and the federal government won’t be able to reject a project because of its climate pollution. Essentially, climate considerations will once again be excluded from decision-making, potentially allowing more and more carbon-intensive projects to proceed unchecked. https://lnkd.in/eRbbYvPC

Great news in the environment sector as the UK Supreme Court ruling in early June is hailed as a victory for climate action. The court ruled that the County Council of Surrey should have considered the full climate impact of a proposed series of wells to be structured near the town of Horley. The court agreed with environmental campaigners, that, as part of its environmental impact assessment, the county should not only have considered the greenhouse emissions but also the burning of the oil emitted from building the wells. According to experts, they believe that this decision will set a precedent for other nations. More: https://bit.ly/3Lhf89n #ClimateAction #ClimateChange #Environment

Learn how state #superfund laws are increasingly targeting companies in the fossil fuel sector for climate change costs. #EnvironmentalLaw https://bit.ly/468fybO

The Climate Change Superfund Act is having a moment in the spotlight now that a similar law passed both houses in Vermont‘s legislature, mounting the pressure on lawmakers to get New York’s version across the finish line. The bill applies the “polluters pay” principle to climate change: if a company spills oil and pollutes a river, it’s required to pay for the clean up. The legislation proposes the same for those that wrecked the atmosphere and contributed to climate change. https://lnkd.in/etkTWF8j

🌱 This bill is really trying to do the right thing for the climate but it’s on shaky ground scientifically and not grounded in consensus on best practices for #carbonmarkets.  My colleague Will Turner does a great job of explaining. Some highlights: 💡 The goal of preventing businesses from engaging with low-quality carbon credits is laudable, as it's essential to improve climate outcomes. However, in practice, SB 1036 would likely make it much harder for businesses everywhere – not just in California – to engage in voluntary climate action.  🌿 Plus, the goal of weeding out low-quality carbon credits has already been addressed by existing California law (AB 1305), companies making net-zero, carbon neutral, or similar emissions claims to disclose how these claims were assessed, whether they’re verified by a third party, and what carbon offset projects or programs were used. 🚀 It's imperative that we strike a balance between transparency, effectiveness, and practicality in our carbon market regulations. We need frameworks that encourage innovation and sustainability while providing clear guidelines for market participants.

#FossilFuelLobby #Canada #ImpactAssessmentAct #IAA "It has been a while since we’ve written about the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). It’s time for an update. Last month, the federal government amended the IAA – and the changes mean that major projects can no longer be rejected based on their climate impacts. But before we dig in, a reminder of why impact assessments are crucial. Environmental impact assessments are supposed to ensure that only projects which keep our communities safe and healthy get approved. A strong project review process is the only way governments can assess the environmental and social impacts of major projects like pipelines, mines, transmission lines and dams. In 2012, the previous government gutted Canada’s federal environmental assessment rules. This left communities with a flawed decision-making process that put the environment and the public at risk. Years of advocacy for better project review rules resulted in the passage of the IAA in 2019. The improvements in the IAA were the result of years of hard work, with supporters like you defending the bill as it moved through Parliament and the Senate. Groups with close ties to the oil and gas industry bombarded decision-makers with inaccurate and downright misleading information in an attempt to derail the bill as it moved through Parliament and the Senate. Industry groups didn’t want to see pipelines and energy projects assessed on their impact on Canada’s climate targets. They preferred the previous process, which rubber-stamped their projects. ... Last fall, the Supreme Court of Canada made its ruling and found parts of the act were unconstitutional. In response, the federal government amended the act. But the government went far beyond the minor changes required by the court. Alarmingly, the government removed greenhouse gas emissions as effects under the federal government’s jurisdiction. This means that we’ll no longer be able to get a project reviewed based on its climate impacts, and the federal government won’t be able to reject a project because of its climate pollution. Essentially, climate considerations will once again be excluded from decision-making, potentially allowing more and more carbon-intensive projects to proceed unchecked. It’s important to note that the Supreme Court decision does not require the federal government to take this action. The ruling emphasized the need for the government to undertake further work to properly define how greenhouse gas emissions would be considered. The Supreme Court Reference Decision called on the federal government to better define its responsibility, not to abandon it. The Government of Canada must walk back its decision – and properly assess the climate impacts of major projects in Canada."

This decision has been weighing on my mind. How can we have substantive EPBC ACT reform without considering the most existential threat to our environment, nature and cultural heritage in Australia and globally, climate change? #EPBCACT #ClimateReform

On Wednesday, the Sierra Club filed suit against the SEC claiming the new climate disclosure rule doesn't go far enough. Meanwhile, nearly 40% of the States have filed suit claiming the rule goes too far and is overly burdensome. The lawsuits aren't really a surprise as this rule seemed destined for the courts from the beginning, even after the final version was somewhat watered down compared to what some groups were hoping for. https://lnkd.in/eiMUnMyx #sec #climatedisclosure #climaterisk #scienceandenvironment