• Greenwashing Hidroelétrico

    By Andrea Sutherland, for Wa Ni Ska Tan Empresas utilizam termos como “limpo”, “verde” e “eco-friendly” para celebrar sua sustentabilidade ambiental, mas sem evidência para dar suporte as suas reivindicações, elas não são defensoras ecológicas; eles estão greenwashing. O termo greenwashing  existe desde 1986, quando o ambientalista Jay Westerveld o usou para descrever o esforço de um hotel para incentivar os clientes a reutilizar toalhas. O hotel enquadrou a iniciativa como um esforço de conservação quando, na realidade, o programa foi concebido para reduzir custos. Quase quarenta anos depois, entrei para Wa Ni Ska Tan como estudante durante o verão para estudar o greenwashing em empresas hidrelétricas canadenses. Com a pesquisa em andamento, imaginei que levaria algum tempo para compartilhar minhas descobertas recentes. Greenwashing é definido como “Desinformação disseminada por uma organização de forma a apresentar uma imagem pública ambientalmente responsável”, mas em termos simples, descreve uma desconexão entre o discurso ecológico de uma empresa e o real caminho ecológico. Em geral, uma organização está fazendo um greenwashing quando suas promessas e práticas não são correspondentes. Apesar de ser ilegal de acordo com as leis de publicidade canadenses, a greenwashing é uma prática comercial comum. Um estudo recente revelou que 94% dos chamados produtos “eco-friendly” pesquisados ​​no Canadá estavam ligados a pelo menos uma alegação de greenwashing. Como se isso não bastasse, uma abordagem baseada em reivindicações é apenas um tipo de greenwashing. As empresas também podem desenvolver uma reputação ambiental imerecida ou greenwashing executivo. Quando uma organização está praticando greenwashing, ela está destacando suas práticas ambientais, sem revelar as verdadeiras razões por trás delas. Por exemplo, em seu site, Hydro-Québec descreve seu compromisso com os estudos de monitoramento de gases de efeito estufa desde 1993. Eles dizem que o objetivo desses estudos é “melhorar a compreensão dos impactos de [seus] reservatórios nas emissões de gases de efeito estufa”, entre outras coisas. Mas esse compromisso ambiental de longa data é, na verdade, apenas um efeito colateral de uma decisão aparentemente não relacionada. Na verdade, foi “basicamente por causa dos EUA” que eles começaram a medir as emissões, de acordo com seu Consultor Ambiental Sênior, Alain Tremblay. Quando a Hydro-Québec estava procurando exportar energia para os Estados Unidos, os americanos estavam preocupados com o fato de os reservatórios serem grandes emissores de gases do efeito estufa, então a Crown Corporation iniciou seus programas de monitoramento para provar que eles estavam errados. Anos depois, eles esconderam essa estratégia de expansão econômica sob uma fachada de responsabilidade ambiental, um exemplo perfeito de  greenwashing. O greenwashing executivo, por outro lado, é o uso de cores e imagens para criar uma imagem ambientalmente consciente, sem se responsabilizar por quaisquer reivindicações em particular. Nas Diretrizes da marca BC Hydro, em um documento que descreve os requisitos de publicação da empresa, afirmam que "[sua] paleta de cores é inspirada por [sua] bela província e a paisagem - montanhas, florestas, terra e água." Ao dizer isso, BC Hydro está admitindo a execução de greenwashing. Eles projetaram explicitamente sua paleta de cores para criar uma reputação amiga do ambiente, sem ter que fazer uma única promessa ambiental aos seus clientes. Outro exemplo de lavagem verde executiva pode ser visto em um comunicado à imprensa da Hydro-Québec que diz “ Energia limpa para alimentar todos nós”. Créditos da foto: Hydro-Québec O amplo reservatório desta foto e as vastas florestas emolduram a hidroeletricidade como uma fonte de energia amiga do ambiente. Enquanto isso, as imagens escondidas dos holofotes mostram uma representação muito diferente, mas significativamente mais realista, da energia hidrelétrica de Quebec: Créditos da foto: Nasa Earth Observatory Esta imagem aérea mostra as florestas desmatadas e os reservatórios inundados do projeto Eastmain-1-A da Hydro-Québec, convenientemente ignorados por seu greenwashing executivo. Greenwashing é atraente para as organizações porque permite que elas se beneficiem de uma reputação ecológica sem fazer nenhuma mudança em seu comportamento. Quando as empresas passam por uma greenwashing, elas podem comemorar suas vitórias menores para distrair o público de suas falhas muito maiores. Os maiores greenwashers são geralmente empresas de energia, uma vez que estão desesperadas para esconder suas falhas ecológicas. Eu descobri que as corporações hidrelétricas no Canadá não são exceção. Embora seu impacto ambiental geral seja menor do que o das usinas de gás tradicionais, as concessionárias de energia canadenses estão determinadas a rotular a hidroeletricidade e toda a infraestrutura existente como uma solução para a mudança climática. As empresas de energia também tendem a usar a complexidade de suas práticas para regular a opinião pública. Ou seja, uma empresa de energia como a Manitoba Hydro se posicionará como a maior especialista em seu campo. Eles vão controlar o financiamento e regular os estudos, mostrando efetivamente sua energia hidrelétrica da maneira que escolherem. Dito isso, o Greenwashing da energia hidrelétrica canadense é um fenômeno generalizado. Se você me perguntar, uma parte da razão pela qual as empresas têm sido tão bem-sucedidas em divulgar suas reivindicações de carbono zero é porque os consumidores (eu inclusive) querem que sejam verdadeiras. Mas, como espero mostrar a vocês, aceitar essas afirmações como um fato é abraçar a ignorância e, por mais atraente que seja, não é uma solução para o nosso futuro energético. Se você tem pensamentos ou ideias sobre a Greenwashing hidrelétrico, eu adoraria ouvir de você! Meu email é: andrea@hydroimpacted.ca. O que é greenwash? Substantivo- desinformação disseminada por uma organização de modo a apresentar uma imagem de responsabilidade ambiental. 94% das empresas canandenses que se autodenominaram ecologicamente corretas foram consideradas culpadas de greenwashing em 2017. Greenwashing ...maximiza os lucros e minimiza as perdas. ...é considerada ilegal perante as legislação canadense de propaganda. ... leva ao aumento do ceticismo do movimento ecológico. Dicas para identificar o Greenwashing: Pergunte a si mesmo... Isto é vago ou enganoso? Pode ser provado cientificamente? Isto foi verificado por um terceiro?


    Continue reading
  • Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Plymouth, MA calls on governors to reject Canadian hydro

    Submitted by the North American Megadam Resistance Alliance (NAMRA) August 17, 2020 The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe today announced it is joining with the Penobscot and Innu Nation in opposing the transmission corridor for hydroelectricity from Canada to Boston. In a letter the Herring Pond Tribe calls on Governor Charlie Baker and Governor Janet Mills in Maine to reject imports of Canadian hydroelectricity because they cause environmental injustices in “Indigenous communities whose homelands and sacred places are ravaged by dams, flooding, [and] transmission corridors….” Massachusetts energy policy does not consider the negative impacts of Canada’s hydroelectricity on Indigenous and frontline communities.  In 2018, the Baker Administration approved 20-year contracts to import more hydroelectricity from the Canadian power company Hydro-Quebec, calling it clean energy. Most of Hydro-Quebec’s dams were built on the ancestral lands of Indigenous people without prior consent and new megadams are under construction for export to Massachusetts.  The New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) hydropower corridor will deliver the power to Boston and cut through 145 miles of Maine wilderness A majority of Maine residents oppose NECEC. A similar corridor to New York City is opposed by a wide range of organizations. Since 2017, Indigenous people who suffer from Canadian hydropower development have spoken at the National Day of Mourning in Plymouth, Massachusetts on the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday as a reminder of the impact of colonialism on Native people. Amy Norman an Inuk woman whose ancestral territory is poisoned spoke in 2019 about how hydropower is not clean energy but destroys lands and waters. Herring Pond Tribe Chairlady Melissa (Harding) Ferretti stated, “We are honored to stand with the Penobscot and Innu Nations in opposing projects that are destructive to the environment and to Indigenous homelands.  As Indigenous peoples, it is our responsibility to protect all that is sacred – including land, water, and wildlife – for the wellbeing of future generations.” For more information: www.herringpondtribe.org Contact: Melissa Ferretti, Chairlady/President, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Inc. Tel. 508.304.5023  Melissaferretti@hotmail.com www.northeastmegadamresistance.org


    Continue reading
  • Two Years After Lao Dam Collapse, Call for Justice Persists

    Today marks the second anniversary of the devastating Xe Pian Xe Namnoy dam collapse in Laos. Below is the joint news release from International Rivers, Inclusive Development International (IDI) and Mekong Watch. Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bangkok, July 23, 2020 - Two years ago today, at least 70 people died or disappeared and over 7000 were displaced when a dam collapsed in Laos, submerging homes, families and entire villages under a rushing wall of water. On the second anniversary of the disaster, those affected are yet to see justice. The Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy project is now operational and exporting electricity to Thailand. The dam collapse prompted only a brief delay in the project construction, with project developers pushing forward to reassure their shareholders, meet contractual obligations, and start generating revenues by the first quarter of 2020. Meanwhile, thousands of people who lost family members, homes, land and livelihoods in the tragedy remain in difficult conditions and without answers or accountability from those responsible for the disaster. Displaced families continue to reside in temporary housing and face food shortages and inconsistent access to water. Many are yet to receive full compensation for the losses and harm suffered. Across the border in Cambodia, where the floodwaters from the collapse affected thousands of people and destroyed homes and property, there has been no official recognition of the damage or compensation provided to those affected. “It is unconscionable that the survivors of the dam collapse still face such hardship and uncertainty over their future” says Maureen Harris, Programs Director at International Rivers. “The compensation for survivors must be sufficient to cover all losses and harms, and include a credible claims process to fully restore the livelihoods of the affected people. The process should be culturally appropriate and include protection against reprisals.” Information surrounding the causes of the Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy disaster remains opaque. The Lao government-commissioned independent expert report pointed to construction problems as prompting the collapse. The project developers have denied the report’s findings but have been unable to offer any other evidence-based explanation. The project’s current operations, and lack of information about structural changes or material reinforcements, also raise concerns about the safety of the structure and the threat of another failure. “Although the failed Saddle Dam ‘D’ has been replaced, the equally unstable Saddle Dams E and F have not been replaced as of mid 2020, with no explanation from the power company or Lao authorities, says Richard Meehan, a dam safety expert and lecturer at Stanford University. “It is not likely that the project can be safely operated until this is done.” In addition, little information is publicly available regarding the project’s insurance payout, expenditure of donations and humanitarian relief funds, the ways compensation is determined and allocated and the provision of land and new housing. “Thailand’s national action plan on business and human rights calls for Thai companies to respect human rights wherever they operate”, says Phairin Sohsai, Thailand Campaigner at International Rivers. “Thai investors and financiers must act transparently and disclose information about the remedial process.” Civil society organizations monitoring the dam collapse have repeatedly sought to engage the business stakeholders involved in the project, including project developers, investors, financiers and insurers, seeking responses to letters, invitations to dialogue, and in person submissions to headquarter offices. Limited response has been received to date. Letters from several UN human rights experts to the governments of Laos, Korea and Thailand and business actors and financiers involved in the project in April 2020, urging them to address ongoing human rights violations experienced by the survivors of the dam collapse, have also gone largely unanswered. “We urge the project’s developers and financial backers to be accountable for the losses and injustice by engaging meaningfully with affected communities and concerned members of civil society” says Yuka Kiguchi, Director of Mekong Watch. “Time-bound commitments and transparent allocation of funds are needed to show they will fully support people in restoring and sustaining a dignified future.” Join us for an online event on 30 July 2020: further details can be found here.  For further reading, check out the following links: A recent letter sent by a coalition of groups to the project developer: https://www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/pnpc_re_communities_displaced_by_pnpc_project_july2020.pdf Mekong Watch published a video, 2 Years After the Xe Pian-Xe Namnoy Dam Collapse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDbmBf5o5jo&feature=youtu.be


    Continue reading
  • Klamath River Dam Removal Update: An Urgent Need for Action!

    Original blog by Bruce Shoemaker for International Rivers available here. Reposted with permission from author. September 4, 2020 The proposed removal of four aging dams on the Klamath River in far-northern California and southern Oregon is at a crucial juncture. Following sustained campaigning by tribal and environmental groups, what is likely the largest proposed dam removal project to date world-wide, one that has huge implications for the international movements for river restoration and against the continued damming of the world’s rivers, had been set to commence next year, with physical removal to begin in early 2022. By blocking upstream habitat, the Klamath dams have been implicated in crashing salmon numbers, to the point where many of the river’s historic salmon runs are now in severe and worsening decline. The dams’ reservoirs produce toxic blue-green algae which has greatly impaired the river’s water quality. Above all, the removal of the Klamath dams is an issue of environmental justice for the tribes whose livelihoods and cultures have being decimated by these dams. The four dams are currently owned by Pacific Power, a subsidiary of PacifiCorp, which is in turn owned by billionaire Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway holding company. A multiparty pact agreed to in 2016 by PacifiCorp, the affected Tribes, the States of California and Oregon, federal agencies and many other groups set a dam removal process in motion. A key aspect is the ownership transfer of the dams to the non-profit Klamath River Renewal Corporation, which is to be responsible for dam removal and related restoration. Removal costs are to be paid for by $250 million in public money from the State of California and another $200 million collected from PacifiCorp ratepayers through a special surcharge. Many conservation leaders had to swallow hard at giving PacifiCorp such a sweet deal, but decided it was worth it just to get the dams down as quickly as possible. This pact required the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In July, after an extended review, FERC approved the majority of the agreement with a key exception–PacifiCorp does not get to walk away from all liability. In many ways this is a positive precedent –implying that the public interest is not served by allowing a utility to make a fortune off an environmentally damaging dam and then being able to walk away with no residual liability. However, PacifiCorp has now balked at proceeding with this agreement, saying they need time to study the issue and do not want to be responsible for any potential liability over and above the public and ratepayer funds already committed to the project. This despite the fact that if the pact collapses, PacifiCorp ratepayers will be on the hook for retrofitting the dams to allow for fish passage and improved water quality, something that would cost many hundreds of millions of dollars– much more than the cost of dam removal and without public funding. It is likely that PacifiCorp is delaying action in hopes of being rewarded with even more public subsidies and guarantees–and in anticipation of ongoing annual extensions of its outdated and expired operating license–allowing it to, in the meantime, continue making profits off the dams without addressing their many flaws. However, every delay in dam removal further imperils salmon recovery, contributes to the river’s deteriorating water quality and perpetuates an ongoing injustice against Karuk, Yurok and Klamath tribal people. The clock is ticking. FERC wants an answer. California and Oregon want an answer. Tribes want an answer. The conservation community wants an answer. Every delay further endangers critically important salmon runs. Warren Buffett and PacifiCorp are in a position to simultaneously do something extraordinary for one of the great rivers of the West and help right a longstanding environmental injustice while making a very prudent financial decision for their ratepayers and shareholders. PacifiCorp needs to stop delaying and accept the conditions laid down by FERC—now. A new campaign has been launched to convince PacifiCorp to accept FERC’s ruling and proceed with dam removal as soon as possible.  On July 28th over 100 organizations, including International Rivers, released this letter. Earlier in the month, California Governor Gavin Newsome wrote a letter to Warren Buffett asking him to proceed with dam removal. National publications have carried a number of articles and commentary pieces, including this August 19th piece by Jacques Leslie in the Los Angeles Times and this piece by Frankie Myers, Yurok tribal vice-chair, published in Indian Country Today on September 4th. We need your help to ensure the timely removal of the Klamath River dams. The more people Warren Buffett and his companies hear from on this issue the better. HERE ARE WAYS YOU CAN HELP: Sign the online petition to Warren Buffett HERE For more impact, write your own individual letter to Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway asking them to have PacifiCorp accept the FERC agreement and proceed with the dam removal process without further delay. WARREN BUFFETT CONTACT INFORMATION Warren E. Buffett, CEOBerkshire Hathaway Inc.3555 Farnam StreetOmaha, NE 68131berkshire@berkshirehathaway.com


    Continue reading