De onde vem e para onde vai a água utilizada na exploração do gás de xisto? Essas questões geram frequentes polêmicas e debates, uma vez que produtos químicos são utilizados nesse tipo de extração. De acordo com o conselheiro da Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SBPC), o pesquisador Jailson de Andrade, ainda faltam estudos criteriosos sobre o assunto. Andrade alerta, sobretudo, para a carência de informações que identifiquem onde as jazidas de gás natural estão localizadas e se estão perto de aquíferos importantes. “Os estudos realizados até agora são contestados. Não se sabe para onde vai a água contaminada por produtos químicos utilizados na exploração do gás. Ainda não há uma experiência no Brasil que possa se tomar como base. Falta informação”, diz. Apesar de os dados ainda serem imprecisos, existem companhias ansiosas por entrarem em processos licitatórios de exploração do gás de xisto no Brasil, e outras vislumbrando lucros para despoluir a água e as áreas porventura afetadas pela sua extração. O pesquisador observa, no entanto, que não há tecnologia para despoluir os aquíferos, caso eles sejam atingidos. Para Andrade, esse é um dos pontos cruciais a serem resolvidos. “A exploração do gás de xisto sem critério afetará a água sob nosso solo, já que a rocha a ser fraturada (o folhelho Irati) encontra-se a algumas centenas de metros abaixo do aquífero Guarani, na bacia geológica do Paraná”, detalhou. O Guarani é uma das maiores reservas subterrâneas de água doce do mundo. Tem a capacidade de abastecer, de forma sustentável, muitos milhões de habitantes, com trilhões de metros cúbicos de água doce por ano. No Brasil, está no subsolo dos estados de São Paulo, Goiás, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná, Santa Catarina e Rio Grande do Sul. Na visão de parlamentares, estudiosos e pesquisadores, essa riqueza pode estar ameaçada por uma enorme pressão econômica, a exemplo do que já ocorre nos Estados Unidos. A exploração de xisto utiliza o método de fraturação hidráulica, chamado em inglês de “fracking”. Trata-se de injeção de toneladas de água, sob altíssima pressão, misturada com areia e produtos químicos, com o objetivo de quebrar a rocha e liberar o gás nela aprisionado. Nos EUA, 90% dos poços de gás de xisto são perfurados com a utilização dessa técnica. Esse tipo de extração utiliza vinte vezes mais recursos hídricos do que as técnicas convencionais. Com isso, as pequenas cidades norte-americanas nos arredores dos poços de gás de xisto enfrentaram problemas de falta d’água para consumo e agricultura, além da contaminação dos aquíferos subterrâneos e das reservas de água potável. Mas a falta de água não é o único problema. Destacam-se ainda, a excessiva circulação de caminhões, a injeção de fluidos que provocam pequenos abalos sísmicos, a ausência de regulamentação, a presença na água de pequenas quantidades de produtos químicos e metais pesados cancerígenos, bem como a acumulação de metano, que pode provocar explosões. “Há um estudo da National Academy of Science, nos Estados Unidos, que mostra que, em 141 poços de água potável na Pensilvânia, quanto mais próximo de áreas de exploração de gás não convencional, maior a quantidade de metano (tóxico e inflamável) na água”, informou Jailson. “A controvérsia na literatura é se isso já existia antes ou se é resultado da perfuração para obtenção de gás”, observou Andrade. Nomenclatura equivocada – Há uma longa e equivocada tradição brasileira de se chamar o folhelho (shale) de xisto (schist). Apesar disso, os especialistas esclarecem que é incorreto chamar o gás de folhelho de gás de xisto: “O xisto é uma rocha metamórfica que sofreu grandes transformações geológicas, não possibilitando a geração de gás; o folhelho, por sua vez, é uma rocha sedimentar com grande quantidade de matéria orgânica que dá origem ao gás”, explica Jailson Andrade. O gás de folhelho, encontrado em áreas de permeabilidade relativa e também chamado de “gás de xisto”, é um dos três tipos de gases não convencionais cuja ocorrência não está associada a bolsões de gás armazenados a partir das camadas de petróleo. Estas produzem o gás fóssil convencional, encontrado na plataforma continental e em outras regiões do Brasil. Os demais gases não convencionais são o confinado (tight gas), com ocorrência em rochas impermeáveis ou de baixa permeabilidade, e o metano associado a camadas de carvão. Camila Cotta, especial para o Jornal da Ciência/SBPC EcoDebate, 14/08/2014

Utrecht University facilitates some of the best research institutes on sustainable development and climate change in the world, and supplies its students with top-ranking education on the topics. Additionally, it opened the Green Office Utrecht in 2013 to create a platform for students and staff where sustainable ideas are shaped, plans are put together, and projects are launched; all with the objective of making the University more sustainable. Yet Utrecht University and its employees are still contributing to climate change indirectly. Utrecht University invests in the fossil fuel industry indirectly through Rabobank, and its staff and faculty do so through the pension fund ABP, which holds over 33 million euro in fossil fuel investments, in companies in like Shell. Investments in fossil fuel companies are morally wrong, because they endanger the future of people and our planet and block the transition to a sustainable energy network. These investments are not only unethical, but also risky. To achieve the UN’s target of keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, around 80% of the fossil fuel reserves currently mapped can never be burnt. Leading research warns of the ‘Carbon Bubble’, much like the Dot-Com Bubble of the 90s, where fossil fuel investments will quickly lose their value as a result of global climate change policy. The ‘Carbon Bubble’ poses a risk for the University’s financial health and that of its employees’ pensions.

President Tong’s country, the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, is one of the first places to confront sea level rise and other devastating real-life consequences of climate change. President Tong is worthy of the Nobel Peace prize because he plays a significant and constructive role in meeting the challenges of climate change by taking every opportunity to help create a new understanding of global warming in industrialised nations. President Tong has joined with other leaders of Small Island States to lobby for the United Nations to address Climate Change as a threat to the security of the world’s people. He has shown himself a builder of peace and reconciliation by continually striving to strengthen co-operation between nations and encouraging dialogue at international forums. He promotes protection of the environment as a means of advancing peace and harmony among nations. From the assemblies of the United Nations to meetings of world leaders he has provided an inspirational example of principled non-violent leadership. After the failure of Copenhagen in 2009, President Tong organized the Tarawa Climate Change Conference which brought together small islands states and large polluting nations to find common agreement, now enshrined in the Ambo Declaration of 2010. In addition, under his leadership Kiribati has designated and is working towards the establishment of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA). It will be among the world’s largest environmentally protected areas. Both the Ambo Declaration and the PIPA demonstrate his leadership in showing that small nations can lead the world in taking effective action on climate change. More recently, President Tong’s leadership in setting up the Coalition of Atoll Nations, bringing the frontline most vulnerable states together, is evidence that President Tong is a catalyst the world needs now in the lead up to the climate conference in Paris in December 2015.

Those we have elected are failing the Australian people and they are failing the natural world. They are allowing the cruel and unnecessary slaughter of sea creatures and the ruin of undersea habitats. We demand our Governments manage natural resources and the global commons solely in the best interests of present and future citizens. Our oceans should not be exploited by individual nations or corporations but held in trust for the benefit of all and for future generations.

Kia Kaha Dunedin City Council Dunedin City Councillors will vote whether to divest from fossil fuels sometime between April-May 2015. Oil Free Otago strongly support our Councillors and urge them to do the right thing for our climate and our future. The DCC voted in May 2014 to endorse a policy direction to develop a Socially Responsible Investment Policy for its Waipori Fund, which would intend to exclude direct investment in fossil fuel extraction, tobacco, armaments, gambling and pornography. The DCC is currently writing up a document to be presented to Council for a final vote, confirming whether Dunedin will truly become the first New Zealand city to divest from fossil fuels. Kia kaha DCC! Be the first NZ city to Divest from Fossil Fuels! We support you! Sign this petition supporting DCC's vote to divest! Like & Share on Facebook: Dunedin Divests! Write to the DCC ([email protected]) to express how important it is that the motion to divest be adopted! Contact [email protected] to get involved! Check out who's already divested: http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/

We value our state and want to maintain our beautiful towns, nature, and liberties. This pipeline is contrary to these ideals.

West Virginia recently adopted new education standards based on the Next Generation Science Standards, which were developed to provide comprehensive, research-based science education that includes climate change -- but not before sneaking in some shocking alterations. The new standards, altered last minute at Board member Wade Linger’s request, cast doubt on climate change as a settled science. If the Board goes through with the new standards, West Virginia kids will get a dose of climate denial in their classrooms -- all because one Board member doesn’t believe in human-induced climate change. All West Virginia kids deserve an accurate, 21st-century education, and they shouldn’t have to learn false science based on standards that contain blatant errors and misrepresent the scientific consensus on climate change. There’s still time for the Board of Education to fix its errors, because the new standards won’t go into effect until next year. Sign this petition to tell the Board to correct all information related to climate change in the new standards for K-12 students in West Virginia -- and give kids the education they deserve. For more info: Climate-Change Education Advocates Denounce 'The False Science From West Virginia' | Huffington Post: http://buff.ly/1x4Zsph Climate-Change Education Advocates Denounce 'The False Science From West Virginia' | Salon: http://buff.ly/1x4ZkpN

Coal generates 70 percent of electricity in Ohio -- while polluting the air, harming human health, and contributing to climate change. It's time to phase out dirty, outdated power plants that run on coal. But Ohio’s largest electric utilities — AEP, Duke, and FirstEnergy — want to lock in this dirty source of energy for years to come. In pending cases before the Public Utilities Commission, they’re trying raise customers’ electric bills to pay for coal plants that are no longer competitive in today’s market. Earlier this year, AEP alone requested to charge Ohio citizens $117 million to keep two coal plants built in the early fifties up and running. Now, AEP has upped its request to cover six coal plants. Duke Energy is asking for a similar amount, but for an even longer period of time. Meanwhile, FirstEnergy is trying to force customers to pay for all generation and maintenance costs of its 55-year old Sammis coal-burning power plant and the Davis-Besse nuclear plant (guilty of numerous accidents and violations over its 35-year lifespan), just to name a couple. The proposal covers 15 years. At the same time, FirstEnergy is also cutting its customer energy efficiency programs. It’s wrong to ask people in Ohio to pay more for dirty energy they don’t want, especially when it harms public health and the climate. If the Public Utilities Commission approves these requests, it would block progress on clean, renewable energy sources by forcing them to compete in a market skewed toward propping up outdated, dirty energy. It would lock in dirty coal in Ohio for years to come, when the state should be transitioning to clean, renewable sources of energy. Now is an especially important time to speak up, because some of these decisions are expected by the end of 2014. If you live in Ohio, sign this petition to urge state leaders to stand strong against dirty coal and defend our rights to a clean, safe, and livable future.

BP is an official partner of this year's Glasgow Commonwealth Games. For a small contribution, BP paint themselves as generous, socially responsible and "green" - when nothing could be further from the truth. - BP will 'donate a tree' for each participant in its carbon offsetting scheme, but the amount of CO2 they will absorb is almost nothing when compared to BP's emissions worldwide. - BP have set up a 'Young Leaders' scheme but it is young people who will have to deal with their legacy of runaway climate change and oil spills. - The US has brought in sanctions against the Russian-owned oil company, Rosneft, but BP have clung to its 19.75% share in the company. - BP have nestled its brand alongside our elite athletes in order to keep their toxic legacy in the Gulf of Mexico and attempts to drill in the Arctic out of people's minds. It's time to stop the greenwash and deny BP the role of 'corporate partner' at all future sporting events!

Our electric utility, SDG&E, plans to replace the shut down San Onofre nuclear power plant with massive amounts of new gas power – through an insider deal that doesn’t allow clean energy options to compete. This rush for more fossil power would come at a major cost to energy customers, public health and our climate. Help us urge state regulators to reject this reckless plan and send a clear message to all the utilities that California is committed to clean energy. We can meet California’s energy needs reliably and affordably with clean energy, yet SDG&E is pushing a proposal that would lock in huge amounts of unnecessary, expensive and polluting fossil power for years to come. This natural gas bonanza carries a big price tag for our climate. We've already seen an increase in climate pollution from natural gas generation in the wake of San Onofre closing. Permanently increasing our dependence on fossil power would put California even father behind on our carbon reduction and clean energy targets. Sign the petition to stop this dirty energy proposal in its tracks, and send a clear message to all California utilities that energy consumers demand clean affordable energy options.

The World Bank has not yet addressed climate issues systematically. Most notably, its Safeguard Policy framework does not require climate change risk assessments for Bank projects with climate-related impacts. This gap in policy has allowed the World Bank to continue financing projects with serious implications for our climate and to essentially ignore the issue completely. According to a recent study by the World Resources Institute, 75% of World Bank projects do not incorporate assessments related to climate change risks into their design, while 88% of the projects do not assess GHG emissions from project activities, relative to a baseline. It is no wonder that with such an approach, the Bank continues to finance projects like the coal-fired Medupi power plant in South Africa, and possibly an even dirtier coal plant in Kosovo. The Bank is currently reviewing its policies, for the first time in its history. This review presents an important opportunity for the Bank to adopt best practices for promoting low-carbon and resilient development by establishing a safeguard policy on climate change. Over 100 Non-Governmental Organizations from over 60 countries submitted to the World Bank a proposal for a Policy on Climate Change as part of this review process. This Policy proposal outlines some of the main priorities that the Bank should adopt as part of a safeguard policy on climate change, including introducing a ban on financing any coal projects in the future. President Kim of the World Bank himself said last year that, “…the world needs a bold global approach to help avoid the climate catastrophe it faces today”. The signatories of the climate submission want to see Dr. Kim and the Board members of the World Bank start to walk the talk on climate by establishing a climate safeguard policy that would ensure the World Bank no longer supports projects that contribute to climate change. As each country of the world has a representative at the World Bank Group Board of Directors, your voice is very important to be heard. One of the Board Committees of the Bank will convene on July 30th to discuss the first draft of the new World Bank policies. Let us together deliver a strong message to them before this meeting that introduction of a Climate assessment policy for the World Bank projects is a must and that we stand united in asking them to act on climate, now! Study by the World Resources Institute: http://goo.gl/nGCULH Coal-fired power plant in South Africa: http://goo.gl/0d2tas Coal-fired power plant in Kosovo.: http://goo.gl/jxTt7c Climate Change Assessment (CCA) Safeguard Policy: http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Climate-Change-Safeguard-Model-Policy-for-the-World-Bank.pdf

The escalating tensions between Ukraine and Russia should not be used as an excuse for increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Gas exports cannot help the current situation in Ukraine, because it would take years for our export facilities to be able to process the volumes of gas proposed for overseas sales. And S. 2083 and H.R. 6 would fast track exports of U.S. LNG to 158 World Trade Organization member countries, not just Ukraine. Increasing U.S. oil and gas exports to other nations will only accelerate fracking at home, transforming rural and impoverished communities into sacrifice zones and endangering public health, natural resources and local economies. The oil and gas industry claims that fracking for gas can lead to energy independence, but that is simply not the case, especially if we're exporting that resource abroad. Ultimately, approving and building infrastructure is a lengthy, expensive process, and the limited oil and gas reserves available under U.S. soil will not support the money and energy needed to ship it overseas. Instead, we should invest in renewable energy.