June 23, 2024 • 44 mins
Can converting petroleum refineries into renewable diesel production truly serve as a green alternative, or is it merely greenwashing? Join us this week on Breaking Green as we tackle this controversial issue with Gary Hughes from Biofuelwatch. Gary reveals the significant risks and threats posed by industrial bioenergy projects, including their impacts on land, forests, ecosystems, food sovereignty, and human rights. We also explore Biofuelwatch's mission and their recent victories, like opposing a geoengineering project and advocating for indigenous communities in Chile.
Is greenwashing misleading the public about what’s truly sustainable? Gary Hughes of Biofuelwatch and I uncover how fossil fuel giants exploit biofuels and renewable diesel to maintain their environmentally damaging practices. These companies gain carbon credits while the global south suffers deforestation and heavy pesticide use in soy cultivation. We discuss the insidious nature of climate colonialism and the influence of neoliberal economic expansion on climate policy, especially in California.
In the final segment, we question the ethics and practicality of solar geoengineering as a climate solution. With Gary's insights into the billionaire class's fascination with technological fixes over real emission reductions, we critique the normalization of geoengineering and its potential catastrophic impacts. We also highlight the environmental crises in Chile, from wildfires to severe flooding, and the ongoing efforts of Global Justice Ecology Project to advocate for environmental justice. Tune in for a engaging conversation on the socio-environmental challenges we face and the urgent need for genuine solutions.
This podcast is produced by Global Justice Ecology Project.
Breaking Green is made possible by tax deductible donations from people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights and expose false solutions.
Donate securely online here
Or simply text GIVE to 716-257-4187
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Steve Taylor (00:00):
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by
Global Justice Ecology Project.
On Breaking Green, we will talkwith activists and experts to
examine the intertwined issuesof social, ecological and
economic injustice.
We will also explore some ofthe more outrageous proposals to
address climate andenvironmental crises that are
(00:22):
falsely being sold as green.
I am your host, steve Taylor.
Industry is pushing for aconversion of two of the five
refineries in Sacramento,california, into what is called
renewable diesel made frombiomass.
But is it renewable or justanother bait and switch, which
is equally damaging to theenvironment and which will
(00:45):
create dramatic impacts onfrontline communities?
On this episode of BreakingGreen, we will talk with Gary
Hughes of Biofuel Watch abouthis work opposing so-called
renewable diesel in the Bay Area.
We will also discuss with GaryBiofuel Watch's recent victory
in opposing a geoengineeringproject and his recent trip into
(01:07):
Mapuche territory in Chile.
Gary Hughes is an experiencedoutdoor educator and political
organizer who has been involvedwith climate justice, human
rights and environmentalprotection campaigns in the
United States as well asinternationally.
Over decades, gary has gainedexperience living and working in
(01:27):
Nicaragua, ecuador, chile andMexico and has traveled
extensively throughout North andSouth America.
He currently works as theAmericas Program Coordinator
with the international civilsociety organization BioFuel
Watch, whose fiscal sponsor isGlobal Justice Ecology Project.
Gary did his master's degree inthe Interdisciplinary
(01:51):
Environmental Studies Program atthe University of Montana.
He currently lives in NorthernCalifornia with his family.
Gary Hughes, welcome toBreaking Green.
Gary Hughes (02:02):
Steve, thank you so much for having me on your
podcast.
This is definitely one of myfavorite shows these days.
Steve Taylor (02:09):
Well, good to hear .
Thank you, Gary.
Look, could you tell us aboutBiofuel Watch?
Gary Hughes (02:21):
Biofuel Watch is an international organization,
and our mission is focused onincreasing and strengthening
community engagement onindustrial bioenergy projects.
Bioenergy presents a whole hostof risks and threats to the
(02:42):
land sector, to forests, tonative ecosystems, but it can
also impact food sovereignty andcertainly can have a lot of
impacts on human rights andenvironmental democracy.
So we work across a broadspectrum of different bioenergy
(03:03):
technologies and bioenergyissues, but always with the main
purpose of increasing communityengagement.
And, in particular, we try towork with frontline communities
that are having to shoulder theburden of these bioenergy
schemes that are unfortunatelyoftentimes being incentivized
and promoted as a climatesolution.
Steve Taylor (03:27):
Well, you're familiar with the program.
One of our focuses is on falsesolutions, so let's talk a
little bit about refineries.
You've been working with somerefineries in California, so
tell us a little bit about that.
Gary Hughes (03:44):
Yeah, let's dive right into one of the biggest
pieces of work that's on my desk, and that is specifically the
conversion of two of the fivepetroleum refineries located in
the San Francisco Bay Area tomanufacturing liquid biofuels to
(04:11):
manufacturing liquid biofuelsmaking fuels from feedstocks
like animal tallow canola oiland then predominantly from soy.
And this issue emerged stronglyduring the pandemic, when the
fact that people in California,andia and beyond were consuming
less fuel, less gasoline, lessjet fuel uh, what industry
(04:32):
called uh demand destruction.
The refineries in the bay areawere put into a little bit of a
squeeze play and one of themeven closed down.
The Marathon Refinery closeddown because they couldn't
operate at a low level, and thePhillips 66 Refinery in Rodeo
(04:53):
reduced their productionenormously.
And then it was, as I wassaying, four years ago then in
August 2022, that Phillips 66announced a new project to
convert their refinery in Rodeoto being the largest biofuel
refinery on the planet, andshortly after that, marathon
came forth with a similar plan.
(05:13):
And so it's been four years ofwrestling, with some really
skewed governance and a lot ofdisinformation and some very
industry-friendly politics at alocal and state level.
Steve Taylor (05:28):
So what is objectionable when it comes to
converting from a fossil fuelrefinery to a biofuel refinery?
Gary Hughes (05:39):
Gary, Well, for our organization, Biofuel Watch.
One of the things we try toflag for communities and for
people interested in thesetopics is to watch out for
elected officials and agencyrepresentatives taking refuge in
the political convenience ofconverting fossil fuel
infrastructure to bioenergyinfrastructure.
(06:02):
It can be painted and framed asthough these are efforts at
decarbonization, but there'sreally a lot of evidence now
that shows that relying onbioenergy is equally damaging to
the climate and create evenmore dramatic impacts for
(06:28):
frontline communities where landis being utilized for making
the feedstocks, whether it besoy or a monoculture plantation
for wood.
So you know, first and foremost, we try to flag for people that
they need to be cautious abouthow it sounds like such an easy
(06:51):
solution to switch from burningfossil fuels to making bioenergy
projects, because it's nothingbut easy.
But we'll go into some detailshere about what some of the
specific concerns are, aboutconverting petroleum refineries
to making liquid biofuels.
Steve Taylor (07:08):
Yeah, I imagine there's probably some local
concerns where the refinery isat, but then you also mentioned
concerns where the feed stockare the tree plantations.
Gary Hughes (07:35):
Is it tree plantations?
You're talking about Gary.
Tree plantations Is it treeplantations?
You're talking about Gary?
But we at Biofuel Watch haveagain and again watched dog
projects that made huge promisesabout being able to make, for
instance, an aviation fuel fromwoody biomass, and it can't be
done at scale.
So you know that's one of thebioenergy unicorns, with the
(08:08):
conversion of refineries tomaking these liquid biofuels.
Essentially, we are seeing thatwhat we would call the unholy
matrimony between big oil andbig ag, and there is a really
heavy pivot in California tomaking a product that's called
renewable diesel.
This is being incentivized byclimate policy here in the state
.
Renewable diesel isn't renewable, even though its name implies.
(08:32):
Renewable diesel is notbiodiesel.
A lot of people may have beenexposed to a biodiesel product
that would be blended with apetroleum diesel to be sold as
biodiesel.
Renewable diesel is a drop-inliquid biofuel.
(08:54):
When I say drop-in, it meansit's a diesel fuel that is
chemically identical to thediesel that is made from
petroleum, and thus it requiresno modification in any way
whatsoever of the diesel engine.
It can still be blended withpetroleum diesel.
I mean it's chemicallyidentical and over these last
(09:17):
four years, since the pandemic2020, when these two refineries
announced their plans to convertthe refineries to largely
making this renewable diesel.
We've seen an absoluteexplosion in the production of
this fuel and especially theconsumption of this fuel in
(09:37):
California.
So it's not just these tworefineries that are doing it.
There are smaller refineriesall around the country now that
are making renewable diesel fromsoy, distilled corn oil or from
animal tallow and then they'reshipping that refined product to
(09:57):
California and it's sold andconsumed here and that therefore
qualifies under the low carbonfuel standard for a carbon
market incentive.
But I think I really want tomake sure listeners know and can
distinguish and hear the namerenewable diesel and be
(10:18):
skeptical about it beingcharacterized as renewable, but
to know that this is a dieselfuel that is identical to the
diesel fuel that is made frompetroleum and therefore it can
just be used broadly.
Steve Taylor (10:32):
So if it is identical, I mean, does it have
the same when it's burned?
Does it have the same concernwhen it comes to putting off
carbon?
Gary Hughes (10:42):
There are still lots of issues with the
emissions, the carbon emissions.
It's.
Still emits carbon when burned,but because it's a biofuel and
it's characterized under the lowcarbon fuel standard as
so-called carbon neutralactually believe it or not the
(11:03):
emissions from the tailpipe aregranted a complete waiver from
carbon accounting.
It's the same thing withburning woody biomass at a plant
that's co-firing biomass withcoal or that has begun to
substitute coal with biomass.
That the emissions from thesmokestack aren't counted under
(11:25):
international carbon accountingrules.
It doesn't mean that theseemissions aren't still going
into the atmosphere.
So there are still lots ofemissions from these fuels, but
because of carbon accountingtricks, regulators and the
project proponents are able tocontend that they're
particularly low carbon or lowemissions.
(11:48):
But nothing could be furtherfrom the truth.
Steve Taylor (11:51):
It's an accounting , a carbon accounting scheme is
what you're telling us.
Gary Hughes (11:57):
There's gimmicks, definitely for the carbon
accounting.
So to break it down into kind ofsimple buckets for
understanding the climateimpacts from the conversion of
these two refineries here in theSan Francisco Bay Area to
making the liquid biofuels isfirst, is that most all
stakeholders admit that thescience around studying the
(12:20):
emissions from the land, usechange, the land impacts from,
for instance, growing soy, oralso recognizing the fact that
the soy agro-industrial modelcontinues to expand further and
further and into pristine nativeecosystems and forested
(12:42):
landscapes.
So there's a lack of real,accurate accounting of the
greenhouse gas emissions fromthe production of the feedstocks
and the transport of thosefeedstocks.
But the other thing that we'velearned by looking at this very
closely from a refinery-centricpoint of view is that these
(13:03):
refineries are essentially justusing the same old technology
that they used for making aproduct out of petroleum, the
so-called hydrocrackers.
They're using, for instance,soy oil in the hydrocracker, but
to make this renewable dieselthat's chemically identical to a
(13:24):
diesel that's made frompetroleum requires phenomenal
amounts of hydrogen.
That's where the hydrocrackercomes from, and all these
refineries both have hydrogenproducing facilities where they
make the hydrogen from the steamreformation of methane gas or
fossil gas, or what's popularlyknown as natural gas.
(13:47):
So making this liquid biofuelat a refinery like the phillips
66 refinery is incrediblyemissions intensive very high
carbon dioxide emissionsassociated with the making of
the hydrogen, phenomenal amountsof hydrogen to actually make
(14:07):
the fuel and really lots andlots of feedstock.
So per barrel of refined fuel,making the fuel, the biofuel
from soy, is way more emissionsintensive than even making the
fuel from petroleum.
Steve Taylor (14:27):
What is their motivation for moving to the
biofuel?
I guess, is my question, Gary.
Gary Hughes (14:34):
Well, the first motivation, the most important
motivation, and one that theCalifornia Air Resources Board
the state agency that'sresponsible for the low carbon
fuel standard and that hasinvested so much politically in
making this move towards liquidbiofuels has admitted the
primary motive is actually toprotect these big energy
(14:56):
corporations from the expensesthat they will confront with the
eventual decommissioning ofthese antiquated and archaic
facilities.
So, basically, you have tounderstand the conversion of
refineries to making biofuels inthe context of stranded assets.
These are stranded assets.
We're, you know, moving awayfrom fossil fuels.
(15:19):
At least that's what theauthorities tell us.
Many climate advocates will saythat we're making that move.
I tend to be a little bit moresober about that, but you know,
the state regulator, in thisinstance the California Air
Resources Board, has stepped upto protect these big companies
from having to wrestle withstranded assets.
Steve Taylor (15:43):
So it sounds to me a bit like a rebranding, a
greenwashing, somewhat analogousto this push for miniature
nuclear power plants, to rebrandnuclear power as green.
Would you agree with that?
Gary Hughes (15:59):
There's a very strong element of marketing in
all of this.
There's definitely a reallyunfortunate threat of
greenwashing when a big fossilfuel company can say hey, we're
making these liquid biofuelsthat are being blessed by the
state of California under thelow carbon fuel standard because
(16:21):
these are low emissions fuelsand they're getting protected by
the state that doesn't want tohear or recognize the evidence
about how these are highemissions fuels with high
deforestation risk.
Yes, there's a lot ofgreenwashing going on here, and
even as we see a real explosionin the real world of the
(16:46):
production and consumption ofthese fuels, we also have come
to the conclusion that there's areally strong fossil fuel
lock-in tied in to thedevelopment of the biofuel
refinery project in Martinez.
Of green capitalism, there'snot one media outlet that has
covered the fact that Neste,this Finnish company, is
(17:41):
investing $1 billion in asupposed decarbonization project
right here in the Bay Area.
That irony aside, what we alsowant listeners to know is that
Neste, a transnational companythat makes quite a big deal of
their making of liquid biofuelsand, in particular, renewable
diesel, and they do a lot ofmarketing and greenwash around
that element.
50% of their business is stillfossil energy, straight up
(18:04):
fossil energy.
So we see a lot of issues withfossil lock-in with the growth
of production and use of liquidbiofuels.
Steve Taylor (18:14):
Well, there's a lot of accounting schemes with
carbon credits overall.
Gary Hughes (18:19):
Yeah, the low-carbon fuel standard
requires the producer ofpetroleum-based fuel to purchase
credits from someone who'sostensibly producing a low
carbon fuel that gains creditsunder the low carbon fuel
standard.
So a company like Phillips 66is able to offset their fossil
(18:41):
fuel production now with themaking of the liquid biofuels.
So it's kind of really goodbusiness for them internally.
Steve Taylor (18:51):
You mentioned environmental impacts.
I mean, so you have to feed thebiofuel industry with biomass.
What does that look like?
And if this industry issuccessful in producing more or,
you know, I guess,transitioning to this so-called
(19:12):
renewable biofuel, which we knowit isn't, what would that look
like?
Or what does that look like?
What communities would beimpacted when it comes to
finding where to get thisbiomass?
It has to come from somewhere.
Gary Hughes (19:28):
Yes, certainly, and this is where, once again, we
find that the real worldevidence is really quite
incriminating.
And you'll have a lot ofstakeholders talk about the what
ifs of someday, likedeforestation risk might be a
risk someday, but we contendright now that the evidence
shows that the deforestationrisk is right now.
(19:50):
And in particular, for instance, phillips 66, just in December
of 2023, while the environmentalreview of their refinery
conversion project was stillunderway, they didn't even have
all the permits yet, but theyapplied for what's called a fuel
pathway application to makerenewable diesel, specifically
(20:13):
from soy oil imported by OceanTanker to their refinery in
Rodeo here in San Francisco, inthe San Francisco Bay Area, from
Argentina.
So that would mean thatimmediately, the issue of the
soy agro industry expansion intofragile forest ecosystems in
(20:38):
Argentina is at play.
That's why soy is considered ahigh deforestation risk
commodity.
But also the way that the soyindustry is structured in
Southern South America and theway soybeans are moved to
Argentina from jurisdictionslike Brazil and, in particular,
paraguay, so that the soybeanscan be crushed into soy oil for
(21:05):
export.
That this fuel pathway that thestate of California is giving
Phillips 66 low carbon fuelcredits for will include soy
from all of these reallyfrontline forest ecosystem areas
that are being hammered, reallyby the expansion of the soy
(21:32):
agro industry model.
So there's a lot ofdeforestation.
We can say that's alreadyhappening.
That can be associated with theimport of soy from South
America to make this fuel inCalifornia and that's an
environmental impact.
What we'd also like to flag foreveryone is the public health
(21:53):
impacts, because over this lastbit of time, with the assistance
of colleagues with GlobalForest Coalition and Friends of
the, the sprayed people becauseof the aggressive use of
pesticides and the way that themodel for soy is totally reliant
on the genetically modified,roundup-ready soy.
So there's huge amounts ofpesticides being used in the
(22:41):
cultivation of this soy and thepublic health crisis is immense.
It really is manifesting itselfin some of the worst ways
(23:17):
people can imagine in terms ofcancers climate policy, which
tries to paint these fuels assomehow climate friendly.
Steve Taylor (23:19):
You know, these false solutions seem to
disproportionately impact theglobal south.
In many ways it just seems tobe a rule.
Gary Hughes (23:26):
It's climate colonialism, there's no question
about it whatsoever.
And that is why I've beenworking with Biofuel Watch for a
short while and it's why thatthe directors of the
organization asked me tocontribute to their community
effort, to our small civilsociety effort, because we've
(23:48):
recognized that Sacramento,California, is a theater of
operations for all of thebiggest extractivist
corporations on the planet, andthese are oftentimes entities
with pretty extensive operationsin the global south.
But they know that if they canpaint some of their extraction
(24:08):
is ostensibly climate friendlyin California, they'll be able
to use that precedent on beyondand that's where we've seen, you
know, Bayer which boughtMonsanto.
Actually, you know lobbying inSacramento in promotion of
making fuels from soy.
They see it as really goodbusiness and they're trying to
(24:30):
set things up here in Californiato protect themselves and
ultimately very cynically.
This is where I, you know, havecome to the conclusion that,
unfortunately, a great part ofclimate policy on a global level
is really just a tool ofneoliberal economic expansion
(24:56):
and these interests have beenreally effective at
appropriating the concerns thatthe public have about climate
and try to then cloak theirinterests extraction in that
vocabulary and, as you weresaying, greenwash it.
Steve Taylor (25:11):
Gary, I also wanted to talk to you about some
of your work with the city ofAlameda.
The city council voted to calloff the University of
Washington's Marine CloudBrightening Project, which had
been conducting geoengineeringexperiments in California.
Your organization, biofuelWatch, I believe, indigenous
(25:33):
Environmental Network, hands OffMother Earth were very involved
in getting the city council Ibelieve it is to cancel that
project.
Gary Hughes (25:46):
For Biofuel Watch, I have been asked to take on a
number of different roles to beat the cutting edge of these
false solution politics, and oneof those roles has been to
participate in the steeringcommittee of the Hands Off
Mother Earth Alliance.
And HOME, as we call it, is theglobal campaign against
(26:10):
geoengineering.
And for Biofuel Watch, becauseof our focus on bioenergy, a lot
of our real effort ongeoengineering tends to focus on
the carbon dioxide removaltechnologies, a lot of the
bioenergy with carbon captureand sequestration, a lot of
those technologies.
But also I've worked quite abit around solar geoengineering.
(26:34):
I predict that solargeoengineering will probably be
one of the defining climatejustice issues of the late 2020s
.
I think we've only kind ofstarted to see how it's emerging
.
I think we've only kind ofstarted to see how it's emerging
.
But what is happening and as wesaw then in Alameda, is that
(26:54):
there's a lot of really big techmoney, in particular, silicon
Valley tech money, going intotrying to develop these
technologies frame of the world.
If they can find some way toengineer the climate, then they
can avoid coming to grips withtheir outlandish wealth and the
(27:17):
inequity that's clearlyassociated with the way that
economy is working for the world.
And so there was an outfitcalled Silver Lining.
That is a very newly appearednot-for-profit organization
registered here in the UnitedStates that has collaborated
(27:40):
with the University ofWashington and then also with a
very, very powerful and very bigmoney research and development
not-for-profit organizationcalled SRI International, and
they began to collaborate with amuseum on an old aircraft
(28:04):
carrier that is docked inAlameda.
The island of Alameda was formany decades one of the biggest
military bases in the UnitedStates.
Most of that military activityhas totally gone away, but the
city's gone about redevelopingsome of those properties.
Some of it's very interesting,but in this instance Silver
(28:27):
Lining went ahead and starteddoing a project, which was more
a kind of public relations stunt, where they wanted to show
people how they were going tospray and measure salt aerosols
in order that they could beginto estimate how they could use
(28:49):
these aerosols in a technologythat would ostensibly increase
the albedo effect of clouds sothat it could reflect solar
energy away from the planet andostensibly cool the planet.
This type of solargeoengineering is well proven to
(29:11):
be likely very dangerous forecosystems and communities,
likely to not cool the planetbut simply to continue to change
the climate of the planet andSilver Lining went ahead and
started this experiment and thenwent forth with a massive media
outreach campaign and they gotcoverage in all sorts of outlets
(29:35):
Politico and then the New YorkTimes and the members of the
Alameda City Council learnedabout the experiment through
reading about it in the paperand they were a little bit
(30:07):
alarmed, to say the least, andthey put a halt on the
experiment and asked city staffof the city of Alameda to do a
June 4th with the goal for thecity staff and the project
proponents to get the citycouncil members to give their
consent for the continuing ofthe experiment.
And, as it worked out, I wasable to actually make it to that
(30:29):
city of Alameda city councilmeeting.
I'm living here in the Bay andI put forth actually, a number
of arguments regarding theimportance of inclusivity and
interdisciplinary approaches andtransparency and really flagged
the concerns about governancewith this experiment and what it
(30:51):
would mean for the future andas well.
There were other participantsin the Hands Off Mother Earth
Coalition who participated.
You mentioned IndigenousEnvironmental Network.
They got in an excellent letterjust before the meeting that
had an impact on city councilmembers.
The Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law has been a
(31:12):
really important part of HandsOff Mother Earth.
Friends of the Earth.
United States has begun to workon these geoengineering issues,
and a number of other reallyimportant organizations Ocean
Care, james Carey from Australiawas able to make a virtual
comment and we were able to flaga whole host of concerns about
(31:35):
not only this specificexperiment and how the
proponents had gone about doingtheir business with this, but
exactly what the ramificationswere.
To begin to get more sociallynormalized, which is what I
(32:00):
argued this experiment wasreally all about.
More than gathering scientificinformation.
They were hoping to basicallyapproach thousands of people
every year who visit the USSHornet to try to tell people
that you know, we don't need toactually reduce emissions or
reduce our impact on the planet.
(32:21):
We're going to engineer a wayto make the clouds more
reflective and that's how we'lldeal with climate change, which
is a very, very dangerousmindset.
But, as I said, I contend thatsolar geoengineering is going to
be one of the definingenvironmental issues of the late
2020s, and I know that you'vehad other guests on Breaking
(32:46):
Green to talk about these issues.
Some of those interviews arereally worth listening if people
haven't checked those out yetBecause, as an old school forest
offender, I find it to be verybizarre and almost surreal that
I'm now working on challengingthese engineering type
(33:08):
approaches to climate.
You know, 35, 35 years ago,sitting under the old growth
that was slated to be clear-cut,we used to kind of you know?
Joke about where all of thiswas going, where the earth
destruction could be going.
And here it is.
It's uh.
People, uh really, are totallybought into their kind of tech
(33:31):
grifter approach, thinking thatthey can manipulate the
atmosphere to address climatechange, when all the evidence
shows that the impacts would bedevastating for ecosystems and
communities.
Steve Taylor (33:45):
I think you're right that this is going to be a
huge issue.
If you want to talk aboutcolonialism, who gets to decide
what the weather will be?
I mean, let's just look at thehistory.
Probably some nations in theglobal south are not going to
get the better part of it If youhave these fixes and then,
(34:06):
let's say, 100, 200 years fromnow, people quit doing it for
whatever reason.
Maybe there's political will,economic problems, maybe
societal collapse.
It's going to be somewhat of aboomerang effect.
That's the termination shock isthe term.
Termination shock.
Gary Hughes (34:44):
Well, gary, that's why we have you on the show.
Modeling shows that that kindof intervention in the
atmosphere could actually, andwould likely, raise temperatures
in certain areas.
So this contention that it'sgoing to cool the planet is
based on just an assumption.
But putting all of that aside,saying that they could find some
(35:06):
way to make this technologywork, you are totally correct.
There's all sorts of factorsand volatilities out there, and
if you suddenly stop that kindof intervention, then all of the
heating that you've kind of putoff for a while will come back
all at once and terminationshock.
It sounds like science fictionand it is.
(35:28):
And again, I'm an old schoolforest defender.
I still thing to contemplateworking on these geoengineering
issues now, but you know, no,it's not.
(36:00):
For a long time we thought itwas fossil fuel interest that
was driving this, and I think 20years ago some of the early
emergence of the ideas of solargeoengineering could be
associated with fossil fuelinterests.
But now it's really clear thatthe fossil capital is there, but
it's kind of fringe.
It's really the Silicon Valleybillionaires that are pushing
(36:23):
this.
And that's where I think,without going into too much
depth, but I think there's anincreasing amount of awareness
of the very dangerous worldviewsthat this billionaire class
from Silicon Valley has rightnow, attentive to the failures,
(36:48):
the really high profile failurescompanies like Theranos with
Elizabeth Holmes, samBankman-Fried and all the fraud.
We should have our guard upvery high about letting this
class of people begin to gaintoo much credibility, suggesting
(37:11):
that they're going to be ableto engineer our way out of the
climate crisis.
Steve Taylor (37:16):
It's fascinating, Gary, that you bring up that
billionaire class there's a lotof interest also in that class
of, let's say, going to Mars andliving on Mars.
I mean, and frankly I mean, theradiation situation on Mars is
(37:36):
such that that's just.
It just seems strange to methat there's so much interest in
going to Mars and terraformingMars when we can't even take
care of this planet.
It just seems far-fetched, itseems to be vainglorious, a bit
egotistical.
Gary Hughes (37:57):
Hubris is the word that always comes to mind.
Steve Taylor (38:00):
There you go.
I like that one.
Gary Hughes (38:03):
Yep, just this weekend I got the opportunity
once again to get in.
There's not a lot of old-growthredwood left once again to get
in.
You know, there's not a lot ofold growth redwood left and
sometimes, even when you're inwhat's left you can see the
impacts of the edge effect andhow the forest is a remnant
really of what it was.
But when I'm deep in theredwoods and I'm marveling at
(38:27):
the miracle of life, I have toreally question the worldview of
people who believe arrogantlythat they can engineer nature
better than what nature hasalready proven it can do.
It is a concern to me thatthese people are so detached
(38:52):
from the planet itself, detachedfrom the people that live close
to the land, and I think, as Isaid, these next five years are
going to be really interesting.
But I think issues like solargeoengineering are just going to
get thrust in our face and wehave to be very, very careful
because there's going to be alot of proponents get thrust in
our face and we have to be very,very careful because there's
going to be a lot of proponents.
(39:12):
There's going to be a lot ofmedia that is going to be saying
oh hey, we've got a solutionfor you.
And that's what we found.
We were able to stop silverlining with their experiment in
the city of Alameda and we, inretrospect, found it incredible
because we noticed that Politicowas supporting them, we noticed
that New York Times wassupporting them, we noticed they
had all sorts of mediasuggesting that their, you know,
(39:35):
research was of, you know, hugeimportance, and those of us who
are putting up resistance were,you know, ignorant and
anti-science.
And you know, I think we justhave to be prepared there's
going to be an onsite and thisis what we've seen with
greenwashing and false solutionsall along is that there's
really powerful economicinterests that will do anything
(39:57):
they can to manipulate thepublic understanding of what
these issues are and try topresent technological solutions
as the road to follow, becausethen no one has to challenge
their wealth, no one has tochallenge the increasing
concentration of political powerthat's associated with our
(40:17):
wealth.
But those of us who've beenworking on these issues for
decades and we know thatinclusiveness is central and
we're working with communitieson the ground all over the world
and learning from them we knowfull well that there is no
engineering solution.
We're not facing a crisis thatcan be solved with technology.
(40:42):
This is a moral and ethicalchallenge that we're confronting
, and we need to approach itwith real ethics.
And this is where putting ourhands in the dirt and touching
earth, I think, is one of thebest ways for us to do our work
every day.
Um, even though it's not alwayspossible for me, I try, and I
(41:05):
know lots of people who arelistening will do the same um,
whether it's just working in thegarden or dealing with some
firewood, to stay close to theearth and remember where it is
that we're from.
Steve Taylor (41:19):
Could you tell us briefly, because we're running
out of time, about your recenttrip to Chile?
Gary Hughes (41:26):
Yeah, I was really lucky to travel back to Chile in
April of this year, 2024.
And I had been there in 2019with the team from Global
Justice Ecology Project.
We did a really sobering tourthrough the BOBO region of Chile
Hualmapu, the heart of Mapucheterritory and learned a great
(42:00):
deal about what is going on withcompanies like Arauco and their
management of plantations andtheir new giant pulp plant in
Orcones, and the increasingmilitarization of the area as
the Chilean state relies on themilitary to protect the
(42:20):
plantation assets of thesecompanies.
I learned a great deal and wedidn't get into it much on the
show today but, working closelywith Global Justice Ecology
Project and you, steve, we'rereally excited because we know
that later this year the teamfrom Global Justice Ecology
Project as well is going to getdown to Chile and to keep
(42:42):
working on documenting what'shappening on the ground and
making visible to the world whatthe impacts are of an industry
that's kind of slipped out ofview a little bit because of the
important but increasing focuson fossil fuels and such.
But the pulp industry and thebiomass industry and this wood
(43:04):
products industry is stillwrecking incredible havoc.
There is a major issue in thesummers of Chile now with
wildfire, but just now, justthis week, we've been getting
lots of images and news from theflooding that's happening, from
really heavy rains, but entirewatersheds that have been
(43:24):
converted to these monocultureplantations that have no
capacity for retaining water inany way whatsoever.
So there's a lot of social andenvironmental pollution from
this model and I'm glad to justdo a flyby on it now on Breaking
Green to alert regularlisteners to the fact that this
(43:45):
is a topic for sure that will bevisited again in the future in
this podcast and that for sureglobal justice ecology project
and biofuel watch will keepdoing what we can to raise
awareness about what's happeningin in walamapu well.
Steve Taylor (44:01):
Thank you so very much for joining us today at
breaking green gary hughes well,thank you very much, steve.
This has been great you havebeen listening to breaking green
a global justice ecologyproject podcast.
Well, thank you very much,steve.
This has been great, thank you.
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by
Global Justice Ecology Project.
On Breaking Green, we will talkwith activists and experts to
examine the intertwined issuesof social, ecological and
economic injustice.
We will also explore some ofthe more outrageous proposals to
address climate andenvironmental crises that are
(00:22):
falsely being sold as green.
I am your host, steve Taylor.
Industry is pushing for aconversion of two of the five
refineries in Sacramento,california, into what is called
renewable diesel made frombiomass.
But is it renewable or justanother bait and switch, which
is equally damaging to theenvironment and which will
(00:45):
create dramatic impacts onfrontline communities?
On this episode of BreakingGreen, we will talk with Gary
Hughes of Biofuel Watch abouthis work opposing so-called
renewable diesel in the Bay Area.
We will also discuss with GaryBiofuel Watch's recent victory
in opposing a geoengineeringproject and his recent trip into
(01:07):
Mapuche territory in Chile.
Gary Hughes is an experiencedoutdoor educator and political
organizer who has been involvedwith climate justice, human
rights and environmentalprotection campaigns in the
United States as well asinternationally.
Over decades, gary has gainedexperience living and working in
(01:27):
Nicaragua, ecuador, chile andMexico and has traveled
extensively throughout North andSouth America.
He currently works as theAmericas Program Coordinator
with the international civilsociety organization BioFuel
Watch, whose fiscal sponsor isGlobal Justice Ecology Project.
Gary did his master's degree inthe Interdisciplinary
(01:51):
Environmental Studies Program atthe University of Montana.
He currently lives in NorthernCalifornia with his family.
Gary Hughes, welcome toBreaking Green.
Gary Hughes (02:02):
Steve, thank you so much for having me on your
podcast.
This is definitely one of myfavorite shows these days.
Steve Taylor (02:09):
Well, good to hear .
Thank you, Gary.
Look, could you tell us aboutBiofuel Watch?
Gary Hughes (02:21):
Biofuel Watch is an international organization,
and our mission is focused onincreasing and strengthening
community engagement onindustrial bioenergy projects.
Bioenergy presents a whole hostof risks and threats to the
(02:42):
land sector, to forests, tonative ecosystems, but it can
also impact food sovereignty andcertainly can have a lot of
impacts on human rights andenvironmental democracy.
So we work across a broadspectrum of different bioenergy
(03:03):
technologies and bioenergyissues, but always with the main
purpose of increasing communityengagement.
And, in particular, we try towork with frontline communities
that are having to shoulder theburden of these bioenergy
schemes that are unfortunatelyoftentimes being incentivized
and promoted as a climatesolution.
Steve Taylor (03:27):
Well, you're familiar with the program.
One of our focuses is on falsesolutions, so let's talk a
little bit about refineries.
You've been working with somerefineries in California, so
tell us a little bit about that.
Gary Hughes (03:44):
Yeah, let's dive right into one of the biggest
pieces of work that's on my desk, and that is specifically the
conversion of two of the fivepetroleum refineries located in
the San Francisco Bay Area tomanufacturing liquid biofuels to
(04:11):
manufacturing liquid biofuelsmaking fuels from feedstocks
like animal tallow canola oiland then predominantly from soy.
And this issue emerged stronglyduring the pandemic, when the
fact that people in California,andia and beyond were consuming
less fuel, less gasoline, lessjet fuel uh, what industry
(04:32):
called uh demand destruction.
The refineries in the bay areawere put into a little bit of a
squeeze play and one of themeven closed down.
The Marathon Refinery closeddown because they couldn't
operate at a low level, and thePhillips 66 Refinery in Rodeo
(04:53):
reduced their productionenormously.
And then it was, as I wassaying, four years ago then in
August 2022, that Phillips 66announced a new project to
convert their refinery in Rodeoto being the largest biofuel
refinery on the planet, andshortly after that, marathon
came forth with a similar plan.
(05:13):
And so it's been four years ofwrestling, with some really
skewed governance and a lot ofdisinformation and some very
industry-friendly politics at alocal and state level.
Steve Taylor (05:28):
So what is objectionable when it comes to
converting from a fossil fuelrefinery to a biofuel refinery?
Gary Hughes (05:39):
Gary, Well, for our organization, Biofuel Watch.
One of the things we try toflag for communities and for
people interested in thesetopics is to watch out for
elected officials and agencyrepresentatives taking refuge in
the political convenience ofconverting fossil fuel
infrastructure to bioenergyinfrastructure.
(06:02):
It can be painted and framed asthough these are efforts at
decarbonization, but there'sreally a lot of evidence now
that shows that relying onbioenergy is equally damaging to
the climate and create evenmore dramatic impacts for
(06:28):
frontline communities where landis being utilized for making
the feedstocks, whether it besoy or a monoculture plantation
for wood.
So you know, first and foremost, we try to flag for people that
they need to be cautious abouthow it sounds like such an easy
(06:51):
solution to switch from burningfossil fuels to making bioenergy
projects, because it's nothingbut easy.
But we'll go into some detailshere about what some of the
specific concerns are, aboutconverting petroleum refineries
to making liquid biofuels.
Steve Taylor (07:08):
Yeah, I imagine there's probably some local
concerns where the refinery isat, but then you also mentioned
concerns where the feed stockare the tree plantations.
Gary Hughes (07:35):
Is it tree plantations?
You're talking about Gary.
Tree plantations Is it treeplantations?
You're talking about Gary?
But we at Biofuel Watch haveagain and again watched dog
projects that made huge promisesabout being able to make, for
instance, an aviation fuel fromwoody biomass, and it can't be
done at scale.
So you know that's one of thebioenergy unicorns, with the
(08:08):
conversion of refineries tomaking these liquid biofuels.
Essentially, we are seeing thatwhat we would call the unholy
matrimony between big oil andbig ag, and there is a really
heavy pivot in California tomaking a product that's called
renewable diesel.
This is being incentivized byclimate policy here in the state
.
Renewable diesel isn't renewable, even though its name implies.
(08:32):
Renewable diesel is notbiodiesel.
A lot of people may have beenexposed to a biodiesel product
that would be blended with apetroleum diesel to be sold as
biodiesel.
Renewable diesel is a drop-inliquid biofuel.
(08:54):
When I say drop-in, it meansit's a diesel fuel that is
chemically identical to thediesel that is made from
petroleum, and thus it requiresno modification in any way
whatsoever of the diesel engine.
It can still be blended withpetroleum diesel.
I mean it's chemicallyidentical and over these last
(09:17):
four years, since the pandemic2020, when these two refineries
announced their plans to convertthe refineries to largely
making this renewable diesel.
We've seen an absoluteexplosion in the production of
this fuel and especially theconsumption of this fuel in
(09:37):
California.
So it's not just these tworefineries that are doing it.
There are smaller refineriesall around the country now that
are making renewable diesel fromsoy, distilled corn oil or from
animal tallow and then they'reshipping that refined product to
(09:57):
California and it's sold andconsumed here and that therefore
qualifies under the low carbonfuel standard for a carbon
market incentive.
But I think I really want tomake sure listeners know and can
distinguish and hear the namerenewable diesel and be
(10:18):
skeptical about it beingcharacterized as renewable, but
to know that this is a dieselfuel that is identical to the
diesel fuel that is made frompetroleum and therefore it can
just be used broadly.
Steve Taylor (10:32):
So if it is identical, I mean, does it have
the same when it's burned?
Does it have the same concernwhen it comes to putting off
carbon?
Gary Hughes (10:42):
There are still lots of issues with the
emissions, the carbon emissions.
It's.
Still emits carbon when burned,but because it's a biofuel and
it's characterized under the lowcarbon fuel standard as
so-called carbon neutralactually believe it or not the
(11:03):
emissions from the tailpipe aregranted a complete waiver from
carbon accounting.
It's the same thing withburning woody biomass at a plant
that's co-firing biomass withcoal or that has begun to
substitute coal with biomass.
That the emissions from thesmokestack aren't counted under
(11:25):
international carbon accountingrules.
It doesn't mean that theseemissions aren't still going
into the atmosphere.
So there are still lots ofemissions from these fuels, but
because of carbon accountingtricks, regulators and the
project proponents are able tocontend that they're
particularly low carbon or lowemissions.
(11:48):
But nothing could be furtherfrom the truth.
Steve Taylor (11:51):
It's an accounting , a carbon accounting scheme is
what you're telling us.
Gary Hughes (11:57):
There's gimmicks, definitely for the carbon
accounting.
So to break it down into kind ofsimple buckets for
understanding the climateimpacts from the conversion of
these two refineries here in theSan Francisco Bay Area to
making the liquid biofuels isfirst, is that most all
stakeholders admit that thescience around studying the
(12:20):
emissions from the land, usechange, the land impacts from,
for instance, growing soy, oralso recognizing the fact that
the soy agro-industrial modelcontinues to expand further and
further and into pristine nativeecosystems and forested
(12:42):
landscapes.
So there's a lack of real,accurate accounting of the
greenhouse gas emissions fromthe production of the feedstocks
and the transport of thosefeedstocks.
But the other thing that we'velearned by looking at this very
closely from a refinery-centricpoint of view is that these
(13:03):
refineries are essentially justusing the same old technology
that they used for making aproduct out of petroleum, the
so-called hydrocrackers.
They're using, for instance,soy oil in the hydrocracker, but
to make this renewable dieselthat's chemically identical to a
(13:24):
diesel that's made frompetroleum requires phenomenal
amounts of hydrogen.
That's where the hydrocrackercomes from, and all these
refineries both have hydrogenproducing facilities where they
make the hydrogen from the steamreformation of methane gas or
fossil gas, or what's popularlyknown as natural gas.
(13:47):
So making this liquid biofuelat a refinery like the phillips
66 refinery is incrediblyemissions intensive very high
carbon dioxide emissionsassociated with the making of
the hydrogen, phenomenal amountsof hydrogen to actually make
(14:07):
the fuel and really lots andlots of feedstock.
So per barrel of refined fuel,making the fuel, the biofuel
from soy, is way more emissionsintensive than even making the
fuel from petroleum.
Steve Taylor (14:27):
What is their motivation for moving to the
biofuel?
I guess, is my question, Gary.
Gary Hughes (14:34):
Well, the first motivation, the most important
motivation, and one that theCalifornia Air Resources Board
the state agency that'sresponsible for the low carbon
fuel standard and that hasinvested so much politically in
making this move towards liquidbiofuels has admitted the
primary motive is actually toprotect these big energy
(14:56):
corporations from the expensesthat they will confront with the
eventual decommissioning ofthese antiquated and archaic
facilities.
So, basically, you have tounderstand the conversion of
refineries to making biofuels inthe context of stranded assets.
These are stranded assets.
We're, you know, moving awayfrom fossil fuels.
(15:19):
At least that's what theauthorities tell us.
Many climate advocates will saythat we're making that move.
I tend to be a little bit moresober about that, but you know,
the state regulator, in thisinstance the California Air
Resources Board, has stepped upto protect these big companies
from having to wrestle withstranded assets.
Steve Taylor (15:43):
So it sounds to me a bit like a rebranding, a
greenwashing, somewhat analogousto this push for miniature
nuclear power plants, to rebrandnuclear power as green.
Would you agree with that?
Gary Hughes (15:59):
There's a very strong element of marketing in
all of this.
There's definitely a reallyunfortunate threat of
greenwashing when a big fossilfuel company can say hey, we're
making these liquid biofuelsthat are being blessed by the
state of California under thelow carbon fuel standard because
(16:21):
these are low emissions fuelsand they're getting protected by
the state that doesn't want tohear or recognize the evidence
about how these are highemissions fuels with high
deforestation risk.
Yes, there's a lot ofgreenwashing going on here, and
even as we see a real explosionin the real world of the
(16:46):
production and consumption ofthese fuels, we also have come
to the conclusion that there's areally strong fossil fuel
lock-in tied in to thedevelopment of the biofuel
refinery project in Martinez.
Of green capitalism, there'snot one media outlet that has
covered the fact that Neste,this Finnish company, is
(17:41):
investing $1 billion in asupposed decarbonization project
right here in the Bay Area.
That irony aside, what we alsowant listeners to know is that
Neste, a transnational companythat makes quite a big deal of
their making of liquid biofuelsand, in particular, renewable
diesel, and they do a lot ofmarketing and greenwash around
that element.
50% of their business is stillfossil energy, straight up
(18:04):
fossil energy.
So we see a lot of issues withfossil lock-in with the growth
of production and use of liquidbiofuels.
Steve Taylor (18:14):
Well, there's a lot of accounting schemes with
carbon credits overall.
Gary Hughes (18:19):
Yeah, the low-carbon fuel standard
requires the producer ofpetroleum-based fuel to purchase
credits from someone who'sostensibly producing a low
carbon fuel that gains creditsunder the low carbon fuel
standard.
So a company like Phillips 66is able to offset their fossil
(18:41):
fuel production now with themaking of the liquid biofuels.
So it's kind of really goodbusiness for them internally.
Steve Taylor (18:51):
You mentioned environmental impacts.
I mean, so you have to feed thebiofuel industry with biomass.
What does that look like?
And if this industry issuccessful in producing more or,
you know, I guess,transitioning to this so-called
(19:12):
renewable biofuel, which we knowit isn't, what would that look
like?
Or what does that look like?
What communities would beimpacted when it comes to
finding where to get thisbiomass?
It has to come from somewhere.
Gary Hughes (19:28):
Yes, certainly, and this is where, once again, we
find that the real worldevidence is really quite
incriminating.
And you'll have a lot ofstakeholders talk about the what
ifs of someday, likedeforestation risk might be a
risk someday, but we contendright now that the evidence
shows that the deforestationrisk is right now.
(19:50):
And in particular, for instance, phillips 66, just in December
of 2023, while the environmentalreview of their refinery
conversion project was stillunderway, they didn't even have
all the permits yet, but theyapplied for what's called a fuel
pathway application to makerenewable diesel, specifically
(20:13):
from soy oil imported by OceanTanker to their refinery in
Rodeo here in San Francisco, inthe San Francisco Bay Area, from
Argentina.
So that would mean thatimmediately, the issue of the
soy agro industry expansion intofragile forest ecosystems in
(20:38):
Argentina is at play.
That's why soy is considered ahigh deforestation risk
commodity.
But also the way that the soyindustry is structured in
Southern South America and theway soybeans are moved to
Argentina from jurisdictionslike Brazil and, in particular,
paraguay, so that the soybeanscan be crushed into soy oil for
(21:05):
export.
That this fuel pathway that thestate of California is giving
Phillips 66 low carbon fuelcredits for will include soy
from all of these reallyfrontline forest ecosystem areas
that are being hammered, reallyby the expansion of the soy
(21:32):
agro industry model.
So there's a lot ofdeforestation.
We can say that's alreadyhappening.
That can be associated with theimport of soy from South
America to make this fuel inCalifornia and that's an
environmental impact.
What we'd also like to flag foreveryone is the public health
(21:53):
impacts, because over this lastbit of time, with the assistance
of colleagues with GlobalForest Coalition and Friends of
the, the sprayed people becauseof the aggressive use of
pesticides and the way that themodel for soy is totally reliant
on the genetically modified,roundup-ready soy.
So there's huge amounts ofpesticides being used in the
(22:41):
cultivation of this soy and thepublic health crisis is immense.
It really is manifesting itselfin some of the worst ways
(23:17):
people can imagine in terms ofcancers climate policy, which
tries to paint these fuels assomehow climate friendly.
Steve Taylor (23:19):
You know, these false solutions seem to
disproportionately impact theglobal south.
In many ways it just seems tobe a rule.
Gary Hughes (23:26):
It's climate colonialism, there's no question
about it whatsoever.
And that is why I've beenworking with Biofuel Watch for a
short while and it's why thatthe directors of the
organization asked me tocontribute to their community
effort, to our small civilsociety effort, because we've
(23:48):
recognized that Sacramento,California, is a theater of
operations for all of thebiggest extractivist
corporations on the planet, andthese are oftentimes entities
with pretty extensive operationsin the global south.
But they know that if they canpaint some of their extraction
(24:08):
is ostensibly climate friendlyin California, they'll be able
to use that precedent on beyondand that's where we've seen, you
know, Bayer which boughtMonsanto.
Actually, you know lobbying inSacramento in promotion of
making fuels from soy.
They see it as really goodbusiness and they're trying to
(24:30):
set things up here in Californiato protect themselves and
ultimately very cynically.
This is where I, you know, havecome to the conclusion that,
unfortunately, a great part ofclimate policy on a global level
is really just a tool ofneoliberal economic expansion
(24:56):
and these interests have beenreally effective at
appropriating the concerns thatthe public have about climate
and try to then cloak theirinterests extraction in that
vocabulary and, as you weresaying, greenwash it.
Steve Taylor (25:11):
Gary, I also wanted to talk to you about some
of your work with the city ofAlameda.
The city council voted to calloff the University of
Washington's Marine CloudBrightening Project, which had
been conducting geoengineeringexperiments in California.
Your organization, biofuelWatch, I believe, indigenous
(25:33):
Environmental Network, hands OffMother Earth were very involved
in getting the city council Ibelieve it is to cancel that
project.
Gary Hughes (25:46):
For Biofuel Watch, I have been asked to take on a
number of different roles to beat the cutting edge of these
false solution politics, and oneof those roles has been to
participate in the steeringcommittee of the Hands Off
Mother Earth Alliance.
And HOME, as we call it, is theglobal campaign against
(26:10):
geoengineering.
And for Biofuel Watch, becauseof our focus on bioenergy, a lot
of our real effort ongeoengineering tends to focus on
the carbon dioxide removaltechnologies, a lot of the
bioenergy with carbon captureand sequestration, a lot of
those technologies.
But also I've worked quite abit around solar geoengineering.
(26:34):
I predict that solargeoengineering will probably be
one of the defining climatejustice issues of the late 2020s
.
I think we've only kind ofstarted to see how it's emerging
.
I think we've only kind ofstarted to see how it's emerging
.
But what is happening and as wesaw then in Alameda, is that
(26:54):
there's a lot of really big techmoney, in particular, silicon
Valley tech money, going intotrying to develop these
technologies frame of the world.
If they can find some way toengineer the climate, then they
can avoid coming to grips withtheir outlandish wealth and the
(27:17):
inequity that's clearlyassociated with the way that
economy is working for the world.
And so there was an outfitcalled Silver Lining.
That is a very newly appearednot-for-profit organization
registered here in the UnitedStates that has collaborated
(27:40):
with the University ofWashington and then also with a
very, very powerful and very bigmoney research and development
not-for-profit organizationcalled SRI International, and
they began to collaborate with amuseum on an old aircraft
(28:04):
carrier that is docked inAlameda.
The island of Alameda was formany decades one of the biggest
military bases in the UnitedStates.
Most of that military activityhas totally gone away, but the
city's gone about redevelopingsome of those properties.
Some of it's very interesting,but in this instance Silver
(28:27):
Lining went ahead and starteddoing a project, which was more
a kind of public relations stunt, where they wanted to show
people how they were going tospray and measure salt aerosols
in order that they could beginto estimate how they could use
(28:49):
these aerosols in a technologythat would ostensibly increase
the albedo effect of clouds sothat it could reflect solar
energy away from the planet andostensibly cool the planet.
This type of solargeoengineering is well proven to
(29:11):
be likely very dangerous forecosystems and communities,
likely to not cool the planetbut simply to continue to change
the climate of the planet andSilver Lining went ahead and
started this experiment and thenwent forth with a massive media
outreach campaign and they gotcoverage in all sorts of outlets
(29:35):
Politico and then the New YorkTimes and the members of the
Alameda City Council learnedabout the experiment through
reading about it in the paperand they were a little bit
(30:07):
alarmed, to say the least, andthey put a halt on the
experiment and asked city staffof the city of Alameda to do a
June 4th with the goal for thecity staff and the project
proponents to get the citycouncil members to give their
consent for the continuing ofthe experiment.
And, as it worked out, I wasable to actually make it to that
(30:29):
city of Alameda city councilmeeting.
I'm living here in the Bay andI put forth actually, a number
of arguments regarding theimportance of inclusivity and
interdisciplinary approaches andtransparency and really flagged
the concerns about governancewith this experiment and what it
(30:51):
would mean for the future andas well.
There were other participantsin the Hands Off Mother Earth
Coalition who participated.
You mentioned IndigenousEnvironmental Network.
They got in an excellent letterjust before the meeting that
had an impact on city councilmembers.
The Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law has been a
(31:12):
really important part of HandsOff Mother Earth.
Friends of the Earth.
United States has begun to workon these geoengineering issues,
and a number of other reallyimportant organizations Ocean
Care, james Carey from Australiawas able to make a virtual
comment and we were able to flaga whole host of concerns about
(31:35):
not only this specificexperiment and how the
proponents had gone about doingtheir business with this, but
exactly what the ramificationswere.
To begin to get more sociallynormalized, which is what I
(32:00):
argued this experiment wasreally all about.
More than gathering scientificinformation.
They were hoping to basicallyapproach thousands of people
every year who visit the USSHornet to try to tell people
that you know, we don't need toactually reduce emissions or
reduce our impact on the planet.
(32:21):
We're going to engineer a wayto make the clouds more
reflective and that's how we'lldeal with climate change, which
is a very, very dangerousmindset.
But, as I said, I contend thatsolar geoengineering is going to
be one of the definingenvironmental issues of the late
2020s, and I know that you'vehad other guests on Breaking
(32:46):
Green to talk about these issues.
Some of those interviews arereally worth listening if people
haven't checked those out yetBecause, as an old school forest
offender, I find it to be verybizarre and almost surreal that
I'm now working on challengingthese engineering type
(33:08):
approaches to climate.
You know, 35, 35 years ago,sitting under the old growth
that was slated to be clear-cut,we used to kind of you know?
Joke about where all of thiswas going, where the earth
destruction could be going.
And here it is.
It's uh.
People, uh really, are totallybought into their kind of tech
(33:31):
grifter approach, thinking thatthey can manipulate the
atmosphere to address climatechange, when all the evidence
shows that the impacts would bedevastating for ecosystems and
communities.
Steve Taylor (33:45):
I think you're right that this is going to be a
huge issue.
If you want to talk aboutcolonialism, who gets to decide
what the weather will be?
I mean, let's just look at thehistory.
Probably some nations in theglobal south are not going to
get the better part of it If youhave these fixes and then,
(34:06):
let's say, 100, 200 years fromnow, people quit doing it for
whatever reason.
Maybe there's political will,economic problems, maybe
societal collapse.
It's going to be somewhat of aboomerang effect.
That's the termination shock isthe term.
Termination shock.
Gary Hughes (34:44):
Well, gary, that's why we have you on the show.
Modeling shows that that kindof intervention in the
atmosphere could actually, andwould likely, raise temperatures
in certain areas.
So this contention that it'sgoing to cool the planet is
based on just an assumption.
But putting all of that aside,saying that they could find some
(35:06):
way to make this technologywork, you are totally correct.
There's all sorts of factorsand volatilities out there, and
if you suddenly stop that kindof intervention, then all of the
heating that you've kind of putoff for a while will come back
all at once and terminationshock.
It sounds like science fictionand it is.
(35:28):
And again, I'm an old schoolforest defender.
I still thing to contemplateworking on these geoengineering
issues now, but you know, no,it's not.
(36:00):
For a long time we thought itwas fossil fuel interest that
was driving this, and I think 20years ago some of the early
emergence of the ideas of solargeoengineering could be
associated with fossil fuelinterests.
But now it's really clear thatthe fossil capital is there, but
it's kind of fringe.
It's really the Silicon Valleybillionaires that are pushing
(36:23):
this.
And that's where I think,without going into too much
depth, but I think there's anincreasing amount of awareness
of the very dangerous worldviewsthat this billionaire class
from Silicon Valley has rightnow, attentive to the failures,
(36:48):
the really high profile failurescompanies like Theranos with
Elizabeth Holmes, samBankman-Fried and all the fraud.
We should have our guard upvery high about letting this
class of people begin to gaintoo much credibility, suggesting
(37:11):
that they're going to be ableto engineer our way out of the
climate crisis.
Steve Taylor (37:16):
It's fascinating, Gary, that you bring up that
billionaire class there's a lotof interest also in that class
of, let's say, going to Mars andliving on Mars.
I mean, and frankly I mean, theradiation situation on Mars is
(37:36):
such that that's just.
It just seems strange to methat there's so much interest in
going to Mars and terraformingMars when we can't even take
care of this planet.
It just seems far-fetched, itseems to be vainglorious, a bit
egotistical.
Gary Hughes (37:57):
Hubris is the word that always comes to mind.
Steve Taylor (38:00):
There you go.
I like that one.
Gary Hughes (38:03):
Yep, just this weekend I got the opportunity
once again to get in.
There's not a lot of old-growthredwood left once again to get
in.
You know, there's not a lot ofold growth redwood left and
sometimes, even when you're inwhat's left you can see the
impacts of the edge effect andhow the forest is a remnant
really of what it was.
But when I'm deep in theredwoods and I'm marveling at
(38:27):
the miracle of life, I have toreally question the worldview of
people who believe arrogantlythat they can engineer nature
better than what nature hasalready proven it can do.
It is a concern to me thatthese people are so detached
(38:52):
from the planet itself, detachedfrom the people that live close
to the land, and I think, as Isaid, these next five years are
going to be really interesting.
But I think issues like solargeoengineering are just going to
get thrust in our face and wehave to be very, very careful
because there's going to be alot of proponents get thrust in
our face and we have to be very,very careful because there's
going to be a lot of proponents.
(39:12):
There's going to be a lot ofmedia that is going to be saying
oh hey, we've got a solutionfor you.
And that's what we found.
We were able to stop silverlining with their experiment in
the city of Alameda and we, inretrospect, found it incredible
because we noticed that Politicowas supporting them, we noticed
that New York Times wassupporting them, we noticed they
had all sorts of mediasuggesting that their, you know,
(39:35):
research was of, you know, hugeimportance, and those of us who
are putting up resistance were,you know, ignorant and
anti-science.
And you know, I think we justhave to be prepared there's
going to be an onsite and thisis what we've seen with
greenwashing and false solutionsall along is that there's
really powerful economicinterests that will do anything
(39:57):
they can to manipulate thepublic understanding of what
these issues are and try topresent technological solutions
as the road to follow, becausethen no one has to challenge
their wealth, no one has tochallenge the increasing
concentration of political powerthat's associated with our
(40:17):
wealth.
But those of us who've beenworking on these issues for
decades and we know thatinclusiveness is central and
we're working with communitieson the ground all over the world
and learning from them we knowfull well that there is no
engineering solution.
We're not facing a crisis thatcan be solved with technology.
(40:42):
This is a moral and ethicalchallenge that we're confronting
, and we need to approach itwith real ethics.
And this is where putting ourhands in the dirt and touching
earth, I think, is one of thebest ways for us to do our work
every day.
Um, even though it's not alwayspossible for me, I try, and I
(41:05):
know lots of people who arelistening will do the same um,
whether it's just working in thegarden or dealing with some
firewood, to stay close to theearth and remember where it is
that we're from.
Steve Taylor (41:19):
Could you tell us briefly, because we're running
out of time, about your recenttrip to Chile?
Gary Hughes (41:26):
Yeah, I was really lucky to travel back to Chile in
April of this year, 2024.
And I had been there in 2019with the team from Global
Justice Ecology Project.
We did a really sobering tourthrough the BOBO region of Chile
Hualmapu, the heart of Mapucheterritory and learned a great
(42:00):
deal about what is going on withcompanies like Arauco and their
management of plantations andtheir new giant pulp plant in
Orcones, and the increasingmilitarization of the area as
the Chilean state relies on themilitary to protect the
(42:20):
plantation assets of thesecompanies.
I learned a great deal and wedidn't get into it much on the
show today but, working closelywith Global Justice Ecology
Project and you, steve, we'rereally excited because we know
that later this year the teamfrom Global Justice Ecology
Project as well is going to getdown to Chile and to keep
(42:42):
working on documenting what'shappening on the ground and
making visible to the world whatthe impacts are of an industry
that's kind of slipped out ofview a little bit because of the
important but increasing focuson fossil fuels and such.
But the pulp industry and thebiomass industry and this wood
(43:04):
products industry is stillwrecking incredible havoc.
There is a major issue in thesummers of Chile now with
wildfire, but just now, justthis week, we've been getting
lots of images and news from theflooding that's happening, from
really heavy rains, but entirewatersheds that have been
(43:24):
converted to these monocultureplantations that have no
capacity for retaining water inany way whatsoever.
So there's a lot of social andenvironmental pollution from
this model and I'm glad to justdo a flyby on it now on Breaking
Green to alert regularlisteners to the fact that this
(43:45):
is a topic for sure that will bevisited again in the future in
this podcast and that for sureglobal justice ecology project
and biofuel watch will keepdoing what we can to raise
awareness about what's happeningin in walamapu well.
Steve Taylor (44:01):
Thank you so very much for joining us today at
breaking green gary hughes well,thank you very much, steve.
This has been great you havebeen listening to breaking green
a global justice ecologyproject podcast.
Well, thank you very much,steve.
This has been great, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!