Protests erupted in Spain last week at the site of the first major delivery of tar sands crude imported from Canada via the United States.  

According to a news report by EurActiv.com, an online news service focused on EU affairs, 600,000 barrels of Western Canada Select (WCS) crude were due to arrive at the port of Bilbao, Spain, imported by the Spanish oil company Repsol. According to MarineTraffic.com data on the tanker's location, it appears the delivery at Bilbao occurred on 29-30 May.

The Spanish oil giant is using this delivery as ‘a test’ to determine if future bulk deliveries are feasible.   

On 29 May, about 50 protesters staged a demonstration outside Repsol's Bilbao refinery, after rumours spread that the dirty fuel shipment had already arrived.  

The protesters, including local residents and environmentalists from all over Europe, have vowed to increase the scope and organization of the protests if shipments continue.  

“This was just the first mobilisation,” said Mariano González, a spokesman for Ecologistas en Acción, a Madrid-based coalition of Spanish environmental organizations. “We are now in contact with the local citizens platforms who don’t agree with the pollution, and we expect to strengthen our activities, and organise bigger protests against any future shipments.”

Thousands of people live around the refinery and Gonzalez did not rule out diverse tactics to try to halt the heavy crude delivery. “We are very proud of the action,” he said, “but if we had had more time to organise, we would have tried to do something with more people that would have had more repercussions and impact.”

The Repsol “test” delivery illustrates the potential for a massive increase in the burning of Canadian oilsands crude by Europe, with particular relevance for the pending northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. If the pipeline is fully completed, Europe may begin importing some 700,000 barrels per day — up significantly from the current rate of about 4,000 bpd.   

Citing the high greenhouse gas potency of Canadian oilsands oil, climate activists are outraged by the planned imports. “This would totally undermine the (greenhouse gas) reductions that the EU is aiming at,” said Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace EU energy and transport policy director.  

The Congressional Research Service produced a detailed analysis of greenhouse gas emission potential from Canadian oil sands crude in March 2014, concluding that:

“Canadian oil sands crudes are generally more GHG emission-intensive than other crudes they may displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17 per cent more GHGs on a life-cycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States.”

In addition, Western Canadian Select crude has such high sulfur and residual metals levels that it requires specially modified refineries to process.  

The Financial Post (Canada) reports that the Repsol delivery to Spain was exported from U.S. terminals. A provision in U.S. law called the Jones Act allows for re-export of certain Canadian crudes from U.S. ports, even as U.S. crudes are prohibited from export.   

The Repsol delivery was loaded in Freeport, Texas, “after gaining license to export,” according to the FP report.    

The crude oil tanker “Aleksey Kosygin” was contracted by Spanish oil giant Repsol to transport the Canadian crude to Bilboa, Spain via Texas, in the first major delivery of Canadian tar sands crude to Europe.

Photo credit: Igor Torgachkin.

Image credit: Protestors in Bilbao via Ekologistakmartxan.org

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In the coming months, European Union environment ministers are set to vote on the proposed Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), which would label tar sands oil as 'dirty' because of its higher GHG emissions in comparison to other fuels, bringing the Harper government and Alberta's years-long lobbying against the law to a decisive point.

As Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, this is "a critical few months for the future of Canada's oilsands industry and the environmental movement that has targeted the development."

It's hardly surprising that two senior Alberta government ministers depart Saturday "for a weeklong trip to Europe to trumpet what they say is Alberta and Canada's solid environmental credentials, and have EU countries reject a proposal that would "discriminate" against oilsands-derived fuels," as Postmedia News reports.

Canada has been actively fighting the EU proposal for years now for its labelling of tar sands oil as leaving an especially high carbon footprint. A July 2011 report by environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe documented over 110 lobbying events organized by the Canadian government on the tar sands and FQD between 2009 and 2011.

For example, in October 2011, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver wrote to the EU Commissioner for Energy, Gunther Oettinger, warning that "if unjustified, discriminatory measures to implement the FQD are put in place, Canada will not hesitate to defend its interests."

In December 2011, David Plunkett, Canadian Ambassador to the EU, wrote to European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard saying that "Canada will not accept oil sands crude being singled out in the Fuel Quality Directive." He added that the Canadian government would "explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including the World Trade Organisation."

Hedegaard has called the FQD a "science-based and non-discriminatory proposal," and stressed that “studies on the lifecycle GHG intensity of various fuels have been conducted" for it, in a 2011 letter to Minister Oliver.

A 2013 briefing by Friends of the Earth Europe details more recent instances of Canada's lobbying for the tar sands in Europe, including sending two Albertan government ministers on tour in Europe this January to hand out fliers assuring the 11 countries visited that Canada was showing "global leadership in the fight against climate change" despite leaving the Kyoto Protocol and pushing for the tar sands.

The aggressive lobbying efforts by Canada and its EU supporters like the UK have continued unabated since reduction targets were decided on in 2009, forcing the European Commission to undertake an Impact Assessment on the FQD and delaying the vote on the proposal from June 2012 to later this year.

"It has got to be fair, it can't be discriminatory, and it should be based on the facts and the science – and this is not. This is my definition of bad policy," Minister Joe Oliver said of the FQD in an interview last Friday.

Oliver made a similar claim that the proposal "is not based on science and so discourages disclosures and will not achieve its stated objectives," last month in an email to the Canadian Press.

The repeated refrain from the Canadian government that the FQD is not scientific doesn't address the fact that the proposal is based on a 2011 Stanford University study commissioned by the European Commission. The study found that average lifecycle GHG emissions from tar sands oil are 23 per cent higher than conventional fossil fuels.

Image: 'Upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canadian oilsands as a feedstock for European refineries,' by Adam R. Brandt.

Since then, research by NGO Oil Change International has indicated that emissions from tar sands oil could be even higher than thought before, because of emissions released by the burning of tar sands refinery byproduct petroleum coke, or petcoke, which is also used as a cheap fuel.

According to the Stanford study, "GHG emissions from oil sands production is significantly different enough from conventional oil emissions that regulatory frameworks should address this discrepancy with pathway-specific emissions factors that distinguish between oil sands and conventional oil processes."

The Pembina Institute also published a June 2013 report confirming that "average oilsands production is significantly more GHG-intensive than conventional oil production," and calling tar sands GHG emissions "the fastest growing source of climate change pollution in Canada."

The FQD sets a mandatory six percent reduction in GHG emissions from transport fuel suppliers by 2020, and assigns default emission values to different fossil fuel feedstocks (the raw material from which the fuels are made).

Tar sands oil production requires more energy than conventional fossil fuels because of its extraction and refining process from bitumen. Because of this, the FQD would give tar sands oil a higher default emission value, making it unattractive to European fuel suppliers, who would be hit with financial penalties and higher carbon offsets if importing it.

The Harper government's plan of making Canada a global energy superpower by opening up the tar sands oil reserves via international trade would be adversely affected by the FQD, which guarantees that the federal government and the Albertan oil industry will continue lobbying against it, and for the tar sands, in full force in the months to come.

Postmedia News reports that EU environment ministers are set to vote on the FQD in mid-October or mid-November. If approved, the proposal would need to be ratified by the European Parliament in 2014.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute / Flickr  

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by energy and environment economist Mark Jaccard. It was originally published on his blog, Sustainability Suspicions.

Prime Minister Harper promised in 2006 to reduce Canadian emissions 20% by 2020 (in 2009 he changed it slightly to 17%). Only two policy approaches can achieve this: emissions pricing or regulations (or a combination). But he rejected emissions pricing, whether carbon tax or cap-and-trade. So this leaves regulations on technologies and fuels, which he promised. However, he has not implemented regulations to achieve his 2020 target, and, according to Canada’s Auditor General, even an immediate aggressive effort is unlikely to succeed – he only has 7 years left after doing virtually nothing since making the promise 7 years ago.

In any case, he is instead promoting rapid expansion of the Alberta oil sands, which, according to Environment Canada, will leave Canadian emissions in 2020 at least 7% above rather than 17% below their 2006 level.

In contrast, both the European Union and California have adopted serious fuel and technology regulations that independent experts agree will achieve the more aggressive 2020 emissions targets of these jurisdictions. Both governments also recognize that it is futile and foolish to spend money on domestic emission reductions if these are offset by higher emissions elsewhere.

It makes no sense to switch to hybrid-electric cars in California if the resulting increased demand for electricity is provided by coal-fired power plants in Arizona or Alberta. And it makes no sense to improve vehicle efficiency if a growing amount of gasoline sold in California is produced from high emitting production processes, like that of the Alberta oil sands.

This is why California has adopted a renewable portfolio standard for electricity, that restricts imports of high emission electricity, and a low carbon fuel standard for vehicle fuels, that restricts imports of high emission gasoline and diesel. There really is no other way to act responsibly in a world in which global-scale emissions pricing is unlikely to happen any time soon.

In the same vein, Europe is trying to finalize the implementation of a Fuel Quality Directive that looks upstream to consider the emissions caused by producing a given fuel, and restricts market share for high emitting sources, including oil from the Alberta oil sands.

If one takes a regulatory approach to climate policy, as Stephen Harper professes to support, these are the kinds of regulations you have to implement. They are messy.

But there is no alternative to such regulations that try to distinguish and restrict higher emission fuels and technologies, whether the high emissions occur at the point of consumption or production.

This is why it is so ironic that the Harper government, with its “apparent” preference for regulations, has undertaken an aggressive lobbying campaign to convince Europeans to emasculate their Fuel Quality Directive so that Canada’s high emission oil sands are treated no differently than low emission sources. It has been joined in this effort by the Alberta government and, of course, the oil industry.

All together, the Harper government’s approach can be summarized as follows:  (1) It promises to reduce emissions by a specific amount. (2) It promises to use regulations to meet its emission promises. (3) In 7 years, it has not implemented regulations that would meet its emission promises. (4) Instead, it lobbies Europeans to prevent regulations that would actually help Canada achieve its targets.

Tired of this hypocritical position of the Canadian government, some European politicians invited Jim Hansen and me to Europe in early May of this year to provide an alternative perspective, one that focuses on how to achieve the promise that Harper and other global leaders made in 2009 to prevent global temperatures from increasing more than 2° C in this century. [For Jim's perspective on this, see this post].

In Brussels we spoke to an audience of European parliamentarians (as well as Canadian and Albertan government lobbyists who seemed to be tracking us). In Berlin, Paris, London and The Hague we met with elected officials, senior bureaucrats, and senior political advisors to Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Holland of France. We also met in London with the UK Minister of Transport and appeared before a parliamentary committee.

As a climate scientist, Jim explained that the 2 °C promise of Harper and other leaders means that most fossil fuel resources on the planet cannot be burned; virtually all leading climate scientists agree that these are “unburnable assets” if we are not to exceed a 2 °C increase. As an energy and environment economist,

I explained that virtually all leading energy system analysts agree that the oil sands, and other unconventional oils, should not be rapidly expanding. As a team from MIT said in a recent report, “The niche for the oil sands industry seems fairly narrow and mostly involves hoping that climate policy will fail.”

How was our tour?

To be honest, I was shocked at how warmly we were received. I think every person we met mentioned several times how happy they were to finally meet a Canadian who was not trying to convince them that expanded oil sands production (and hence greater carbon pollution and climate change) was in their interests. I left feeling that many European politicians will work hard to sustain their climate policy, difficult as this is with economic concerns so dominant.

But will the Europeans have the fortitude to stick with their policy? That’s more difficult to say. Lobbyists for oil companies with a lot of money can wield a lot of influence. And when they have a national government using all sorts of trade threats and diplomatic pressure on their behalf, their power is that much greater.

Still feels like these are very dark times for us all.

Image Credit: Kris Krug via flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As promised, multiple protests against the tar sands greeted Prime Minister Stephen Harper Thursday in London, where he became the first Canadian prime minister to address British Parliament since 1944. Harper has been using his UK trip to lobby against the proposed European Union (EU) fuel quality directive, which would label oil from the Albertan tar sands as 'highly polluting' to deter imports into Europe.

Linda Solomon writes for the Vancouver Observer, that "50 campaigners representing 30 environmental groups gathered outside the UK Parliament [to] greet Prime Minister Stephen Harper's car with anti-tar sands banners, placards and chants." One of them, Suzanne Dhaliwal, was dressed as Bridgette DePape, the Senate Page who was fired in 2011 for holding up a "Stop Harper" sign on the Canadian Senate floor.

The group protest outside Parliament was organized by the UK Tar Sands Network (TSN). Jess Worth of the TSN is quoted as saying that Thursday's protests "demonstrate just how strongly people in the UK feel about the Harper government's attempts to force their dirty tar sands oil onto Europe."

The TSN posted a YouTube video of the protest.

In a separate protest, members of an activist group calling themselves "Love Canada, Hate Tar Sands" (LCHTS) attempted to "block the Sovereign's Entrance Gate to the room where Harper was speaking," and scaled the roof of the Parliament building to try and interrupt Harper during his speech.

According to the BBC, "shouting was heard" inside, but the "speech went ahead." They also report that two women were arrested outside "on suspicion of criminal damage," and three others "detained" by Parliamentary security for trying to get into "non-public rooms."

On their tumblr blog, LCHTS posted videos of their protest on the rooftop of Parliament. They also posted a statement, saying:

"From further marginalising historically shunted Indigenous people, to muzzling world class climate scientists, Prime Minister Harper has shown time and again that nothing will stand between him and developing dirty tar sands, even though tar sands will create unprecedented global warming. Now Harper brings his circus of oil peddlers to Europe to interfere in EU climate legislation, to push his monstrous industry onto Europeans."

They add that by staging Thursday's protest they "have acted, in solidarity with those resisting Harper everywhere, to STOP CLIMATE CRIMINAL HARPER."

British Prime Minister David Cameron's government has proven a staunch supporter of Harper's tar sands push. But some in the UK government are pushing back.

The TSN reports on their site that British MPs have tabled an Early Day Motion to recognize the damaging effects of tar sands exploitation, resist Canadian lobbying against the EU fuel quality directive, and keep tar sands oil imports out of Europe. 7 MPs from 4 different parties have signed. Solomon notes that "other MPs will now be encouraged to sign, in the run-up to an EU Member States' vote later this year."

Harper's final destination in Europe is the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland this week. At G8, Harper is expected to continue lobbying against the EU fuel quality directive. He's also likely to advocate for the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) which, according to citizens' organization the Council of Canadians, could support tar sands expansion by "[empowering] European corporations to attack environmental and health measures" and "[restricting] our Internet freedom [by criminalizing] certain online behaviour."

Image Credit: Rajan Zaveri / No Tar Sands Facebook Page

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to give a speech to the British Parliament this Thursday, a coalition of environmental groups prepares to greet his arrival at Parliament in London with protests against the tar sands.

Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, that "Canada's bitumen production [from the Albertan tar sands] will likely be a popular topic during Harper's eight-day trip to Europe."

Harper left for Europe on Tuesday, along with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and International Trade Minister Ed Fast. The trip will end with the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland on June 17-18. At G8, the somewhat contradictory goals of championing the tar sands and touting Canada as a dependable leader in clean energy will likely be high on Harper's agenda.

The Harper contingent will also be looking to use the trip to lobby against the proposed European Union (EU) fuel quality directive which would label tar sands oil as high-polluting.

The European Commission hopes the fuel quality directive will help "cut emissions by a cumulative total of 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020" by preventing tar sands oil imports into Europe, to reach the goal of a ten per cent cut in GHG emissions by that year. Canada has staunchly resisted the directive, claiming it unfairly targets tar sands oil over other fuels.

Fekete quotes Harper's spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, as saying that the Canadian government wants tar sands crude "judged on science and in fair comparison with other sources of oil," rather than "arbitrary standards." The Harper government hasn't addressed the fact that the EU directive is based on a Stanford University scientific study that confirms tar sands oil as highly polluting in "fair comparison" with other fuels.

It's also likely that Harper will try to meet with President Obama at G8 to discuss the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline linking tar sands crude from Alberta to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. Obama is set to make a decision on whether to approve Keystone XL by the end of the year.

But before G8 is Harper's London stop, where he will be the first Canadian prime minister to address the British Parliament since 1944. The UK Tar Sands Network, who are organizing Thursday's protest, note that addressing parliament is "normally reserved for the most highly-respected dignitaries," and that "Harper does not deserve this honour."

That Harper was bestowed this honour is unsurprising, considering that British Prime Minister David Cameron's government has been a loyal ally in Canada's push against the EU fuel quality directive. The UK Tar Sands Network cites this "destructive 'special' relationship" between the two countries as one of the reasons for Thursday's protest. They aim to show Harper that "there is huge opposition to tar sands in the UK."

Suzanne Dhaliwal, a Canadian citizen and member of the UK Tar Sands Network says "Harper may be coming here hoping to escape the multiple controversies dogging him at home, but the tar sands are a scandal of global proportions, because the industry's emissions could tip the world over the edge into runaway climate change."

"The Canadian government's campaign of misinformation against the EU Fuel Quality Directive is particularly outrageous," she added.

"They are actively trying to prevent Europe passing effective climate legislation by claiming it is arbitrary, unscientific and unfair. In reality, it is none of these things. It is non-discriminatory, based on solid peer-reviewed science, and covers all types of fuel. So we will be protesting Harper's visit, in solidarity with Indigenous communities and all those opposing the tar sands in Canada."

On their website and a Facebook page for the protest, the group raises concerns that the Harper government's "unprecedented lobbying campaign in the EU, with the energetic support of the UK government and British oil companies like Shell and BP" have stalled the fuel quality directive, and may entirely squash it.

In tandem with efforts in Europe, Fekete observes that Harper's government has also been "launching a public relations advertising offensive on American lawmakers in recent weeks — running ads in Washington D.C. newspapers, along with the launch of a new government website" to drum up US support for Keystone XL. The new government website announces that Canada is "one of the few major suppliers of crude oil…taking concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," and boasts a "world-class  environmental  monitoring system…founded on science and transparency."   

The website doesn't mention Canada's opposition to the EU fuel quality directive to reduce GHG emissions, or accusations that the Harper government is muzzling scientists from speaking out on climate change. The government will be spending 16.5 million dollars on tar sands advertising in the upcoming year.

But despite what Jess Worth of the UK Tar Sands Network calls "absolutely extraordinary and relentless" lobbying by the Harper government, the divide between Canada's advertised image as "world environmental leader" and its aspirations towards being the chief global exporter of high-polluting tar sands oil seems clear to those preparing to protest in London on Thursday.

Image Credit: David Hoffman / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian government's tar sands roadshow was in Europe this week trying to convince the European Union (EU) not to slap a “dirtier oil” label on the tar sands.

Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver visited Paris, London, and Brussels to argue against the EU implementing the latest version of its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) that would discourage sales of fuels made from tar sands in the EU.  

A very small amount of fuels from tar sands actually reach Europe. European refineries are not equipped to process the tar-like form of petroleum called bitumen. Canada's tar sands industry would not lose a customer if the FQD passed today.

“The fact that the Canadian government is so keen to stop the FQD from going ahead indicates just how important it would be, not just in closing off the European market to tar sands oil but in setting a precedent for other countries to reject tar sands imports,” says Emily Coats, co-director of the UK Tar Sands Network.

“The FQD would be a game changer for the tar sands industry,” Coats told DeSmog Canada.

The row between Canada and the EU over the FQD is now in its fourth year

“It is quite appalling that the EU is not able to implement its own legislation because of intense lobbying of a third country (Canada),” says Nuša Urbančič, a programme manager with the transport policy group Transport & Environment based in Brussels.

“The proposal should have been adopted in January 2011. We are now in May 2013 and we are still discussing the same thing.” Urbančič has been involved in the campaign to pass the revised version of the FQD from day one.

One of the ways the EU is tackling climate change is through the FQD requiring transport fuel suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their product by 6% by 2020 (2010 baseline).

The measure encourages fuel suppliers to sell fuels in the EU that have a lower carbon footprint. Due to the extremely energy intensive process to extract and upgrade bitumen the FQD labelled fuels from tar sands as having a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. The same was done with fuels from oil shale, another unconventional oil.

An EU commissioned report in 2011 by Adam Brandt of Stanford University confirmed GHG emissions from tar sands crude were 12-40% were higher than conventional oil. The EU averaged off their value for tar sands crude at 23%.

A European study released on May 7th shows the FQD will prevent nearly 70 million tons of  GHG emissions from reaching the atmosphere annually. This amount is slightly more than British Columbia's total annual GHG emissions.

Team Tar Sands Operations in Europe

"There have been massive lobbying campaigns by the car industry, by the chemicals industry, banks, food giants, etc.," Satu Hassi, a Finnish Member of European Parliament told Reuters in 2012 about the Canadian lobbying efforts against the FQD.

"But so far I have not seen such a lobbying campaign by any state."

Internal documents released in 2011 revealed the Canadian government had launched a "pan European oil sands advocacy strategy" the year before "to protect and advance Canadian interests related to the oil sands and broader interests in Europe including a Canada's [sic] brand in Europe."

Members of the advocacy strategy included Canadian embassies in Norway (not part of the EU), Belgium, France, Netherlands and Germany and the Canadian High Commission in the UK. Between September 2009 and the summer of 2011 at least 110 lobby meetings took place between Canadian officials and EU decision makers about the FQD.  

Not surprisingly in the last vote on the implementation of the FQD in February 2012 the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium all abstained from voting. This was actually seen as an improvement from their previous positions because many had expected these EU countries to vote against the FQD as a result of being intensely lobbied by Canada.

Canadian government fears "discriminatory" dirty oil precedent

“This fuel-quality directive (FQD) is discriminatory towards Canadian oil and not supported by scientific facts,” Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver told the Globe and Mail on May 8th.

Oliver in April publicly stated he believed scientists have exaggerated their claims about climate change and attacked one of the world's leading climate scientists for what Oliver said was “exaggerated rhetoric” about the tar sands.

The EU on the other hand is leading the world in taking action on climate change through its  prestigious scientific institutions and its innovative legislation and policies.

“Europeans are starting to see Canada as a combative and backward sidekick to Big Oil, rather than the progressive and democratic nation it once was,” Coats said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

There has been some sabre rattling with the Canadian government saying they will take the EU to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the FQD. A 2011 report by the European legal group Défense Terre found "(t)he Canadian government faces significant obstacles, if not insurmountable hurdles, in a WTO challenge” against FQD.

Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner was quite honest about what the battle over the FQD was really about when he said in 2010:

“It is not because we are protecting a customer base [in Europe], but because we respect the fact that decisions in Europe find their way into other policies around the world.”

The EU's impact assessment of the FQD will be completed by summer. A vote on the FQD by the environmental ministers of EU member states could take place in the fall. Only a “qualified majority” or two-thirds majority against can defeat the FQD. 

For Canadians who disagree with their government interfering with EU democracy and want to help Europeans pass the FQD Coats has this advice:

“If EU politicians visit Canada you could do a solidarity protest, like we did against Keystone XL when US Secretary of State John Kerry came to London.”

“Let the EU know the Harper government does not speak for you.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.