BP, Tar Sands and Earth Day

Posted on April 20, 2011 by Tara Holmes

This is a busy week for the Earth. One year ago today, the BP Deepwater Horizon spill took place, killing 11 rig workers while leaving a massive wake of environmental and social devastation, impacts of which are still being felt today. What have we learned one year after such a monumental tragedy? Friday, April 22nd, marks the 41st anniversary of Earth Day and I’m honestly not certain how much we’ve learned. BP’s profits are strong and plans to resume deepwater drilling in the Gulf continue while many in Congress adamantly deny climate change even exists. In fact, just last week, the US Senate and House of Representatives stood at a near stand-still over budget cuts to public programs, like the EPA.

Still, all hope might not be lost for the Earth. A group of 10,000 inspired youth activists who believe positive change is still possible, descended on Washington, DC last weekend for three days of lobbying, speakers and events organized by Powershift 2011. Armed with outreach, outrage and a passion for a cleaner, healthier world, social and environmental activists from all parts of the US united to demonstrate the power of peaceful action. Bill McKibben, Tim DeChristopher and the EPA’s Lisa Jackson were among the keynote speakers. The rally did not receive mounting national press, yet the message was clear: the Earth needs our help. Fracking, tar sands and increased oil and natural gas exploration are just a few of the dangerous, and dirty, growing energy sources in the US and beyond. Given the rate that climate change is occurring and given that tar sands release two to four times the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as conventional oil production, this is a dire environmental situation that needs immediate attention not just by our legislators, but more importantly, by the public.

That’s where you come in. The Cambridge Energy Alliance, like many prominent environmental groups, advocates for energy efficiency and simple behavior changes. Go to cambridgeenergyalliance.org to learn more about what you can do today. With just a little bit of effort, we can all make a big impact. So, as Earth Day 2011 approaches, reflect on how you want to celebrate – no effort is too little, especially now.

Senator Brown’s Environmental Flip-Flop

Posted on April 13, 2011 by Tara Holmes

Over the past week in Washington, DC, Republican legislators in Congress have been debating steep budget cuts to many publicly-funded programs such as PBS, Planned Parenthood and the EPA. In today’s Boston Globe, Senator Brown’s wavering stance on environmental issues, specifically the regulation of greenhouse gases by the EPA, is dissected in a scathing editorial review. In the article, it’s noted that Brown’s turnaround on greenhouse gas regulation is “…especially disappointing to any Massachusetts voters who thought they saw in Brown a conservative on fiscal issues who was also a conservationist when it comes to protecting the environment.” The editorial piece further points out that Brown’s vote prohibits any improvement in auto fuel-efficiency standards after 2016 and continues to deny that green house gases directly contribute to climate change. Ironically, Brown voted in favor of Massachusetts’ participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which requires utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or face financial penalties. Massachusetts, much like California, is one of the few states leading the way in green, clean energy and job creation – an economy that brings significant revenue and technological development to the state. In fact, Massachusetts is the only state in the nation to combine energy and the environment into one governmental body: the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. For Senator Brown to deny his constituents and instead favor private Koch donations and coal and oil interests is a local tragedy.

New Coalition Advocates for Great Waters Across the Country

Posted on April 4, 2011 by mdlittlehale

A rock jetty on the Narragansett Bay in North Kingston, Rhode Island

They may not be the Great Lakes, but stewards of bodies of fresh and salt water in the United States are joining together to form America’s Great Waters Coalition. Recently Narragansett Bay and other southern New England waterways joined the advocacy organization, which looks to improve the water quality of its members among other goals. The organization came to be after funding for water issues across the country started to disappear amidst the financial crisis.

So far, there are 19 members across 35 different states. Organizers looked to the Great Lakes for inspiration, given that Congress set aside $475 billion for restoration and conservation of the five Great Lakes. Working as a coalition seems to be the way to go, given the success of the Great Lakes. The money won’t be easy; as one study suggested a $3 billion investment would be required for a healthy ecosystem in the Gulf of Maine. Still, the group has argued for dozens of restoration measures and other water projects before Congress, as well as worked on court briefs for water issues that ended up before state and federal courts.

Peter Alexender, director of the Northeast Great Water Coalition pointed out that if there are not enough programs and funding to support water quality and habitat restoration, there could be “dramatic economic costs.” Once again, it is being said that environmental issues, if not dealt with effectively, can have harsh economic consequences. Something that should always be kept in mind when considering any environmental issue.

Spoil and The Great Bear Rainforest

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Tara Holmes

This past weekend, I attended the Wild and Scenic Film Festival in Boston, hosted by e-inc. Though I had already attended Maynard’s top notch version of the Festival a few weeks back, I was pleasantly surprised by how little overlap there was between films at the two events. That said, one of the films I was able to see in Boston was Spoil, put out by The ILCP, EP Films and Pacific Wild. While I tend to consider myself someone who’s current with pressing environmental issues, I must admit – I was stunned. The potential devastation taking place in one of our planet’s most majestic and critical natural habitats, the Great Bear Rainforest, needs immediate attention. One of the largest tracts of temperate rainforest left in the world, the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia, Canada, is home to a plethora of cohabitant species ranging from whales and wild salmon to wolves and bears. The bear, given the Rainforest’s name, holds a special place to those who have lived in harmony with the forest for thousands of years. The unique “Spirit Bear”, a black bear born white due to a recessive gene, roams these lands and is known for its beauty and rarity, yet today numbers only in the low hundreds.

The Spirit Bear, along with the other species who call the Great Bear Rainforest home, are in constant threat. Not only from continued trophy hunting, but now from a proposed Enbridge crude oil pipeline stretching across Canada bringing tar sand oil from Alberta to the North Coast of British Columbia for export to China and other countries. Supertanker ships, that carry upwards of 2 million barrels of oil, would be navigating through tight, delicate and dangerous rocky terrain in order to reach a shipping port bound for Pacific travel. The Exxon Valdez faltered in similar waters in Prince William Sound and damage is still taking its toll on wildlife and natural habitat.

In the case of the Great Bear Rainforest, as with any struggle between business and conservation, it’s critical to understand the balance between energy, economic growth and the importance of natural ecosystems. As we continue to demand greater amounts of energy and as countries – like China – continue to develop and grow, we face serious environmental challenges. The Alberta tar sands are an example of how far we’re willing to go to obtain fossil fuel reserves while destroying everything in our path; the tar sands extraction process is one of the most environmentally damaging and GHG-intensive to-date. The risks are getting higher and fragile and necessary ecosystems like the Great Bear Rainforest are under attack with continued and unabated development. To learn more about the current challenges facing the Great Bear Rainforest, please visit Pacific Wild’s website.

China to Enact Strict Plan for Energy Conservation

Posted on March 25, 2011 by mdlittlehale

A coal-fired power plant in Shuozhou, Shanxi, Chin

Unrest in the Middle East has yielded change in the region, but the effects of anti-government protests are slowly being felt globally as oil soars to its highest price in over 2 years. The New York Times reported that Chinese Energy Specialists revealed that the government plans to announce strict goals for energy conservation.

Make no mistake, this is not an altruistic attempt by the world’s leading energy consumer and greenhouse gas emitter to go green or make strides to curb carbon footprint (energy security far out ways climate change in Chinese policy priorities). China views energy as a national security issue; the concern here is how rising oil prices will effect inflation, export competitiveness, and the country’s pollution problems, according to the NYT article.

China still sees oil as its most important energy source, but as Zhang Guobao, former Energy Czar in China, said, “Oil security is the most important part of achieving energy security,”he went on to say, “Preparations for alternative energies should be made as soon as possible.” China is looking to avoid getting stuck trying to fuel a booming economy on oil while prices skyrocket.

Despite the fact that China is the world’s biggest producer of wind turbines and solar panels at the lowest cost, a majority of its electricity comes from coal. When oil use increased dramatically along with the rise of automobile use, the government pushed extensively for electric cars. This decrease in oil consumption only increased the use of coal. Still, electricity plants tend to be much more efficient than the combustion of gasoline, and stay within the energy use goals China has in mind.

Looking at China’s imported energy sources, the concern coming from Beijing is understandable. Oil from the Middle East, along with the increasing price, gets to China via shipping lanes controlled by economic rivals India and the United States. Iran is also a large importer of crude oil to China. The instability of Iran leaves Russia as China’s most stable oil importer, but only 3% of crude oil imports to China come from its neighbors to the north.

Some are worried that the mostly state run energy industry in China would have to start allocating the limits on energy use. This could cause the decrease in production of certain products, like metals for instance. Stuart Burns on MetalMiner explains;

But who decides, with no free market to set prices on the basis of supply and demand? The impact that could have for resource-hungry activities like steel, aluminum and zinc smelting could be profound in the first half of this decade. China may decide it would rather import metals than import energy, reversing the trend of the last decade. Having temporarily idled some of the 20+ million tons of aluminum capacity, could the Chinese really close a significant portion of it permanently?

As china responds to the effects of rising oil prices, the rest of the world may end up feeling the effects of China’s energy policy. In the more immediate future, China may be looking at energy shortages as their own supplies may not be able to keep up with its rapid economic growth. China’s efforts in lowering energy consumption will no doubt have a number of other benefits along with the primary goals of securing its energy future. The reducing of greenhouse gas emissions will save money not only on energy but on health care costs as the environment in China becomes cleaner and safer for its citizens. The decisions made here will have significant effect on China’s role in energy in the region, as well as its role as a major contributer to climate change.

Energy Star Rating Standards to Tighten

Posted on March 17, 2011 by mdlittlehale

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced updates to its Energy Star Rating requirements on televisions and cable boxes. The revisions are the first in a list of about 20 products that will receive updates to their Energy Star Rating requirements this year.

Currently, Energy Star rated televisions hold at least 70% of the Market Share. The stricter standards mean, according to the EPA, “substantial overall energy bill reduction, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reductions.”

The new standards are requiring a 40% reduction in watt usage. For example, a 60 inch television currently averages about 282 watts, but the come September the same 60 inch TV will be required to use less than 108 watts to receive an Energy Star Rating. Talk about saving a watt!

In its announcement, the EPA states that if all U.S. homes had Energy Star rated TVs and cable boxes under these new requirements, savings would reach $5 billion a year and reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions equal to that of taking over 700 million cars off the road.

Japan Tragedy Highlights Nuclear Doubts

Posted on March 14, 2011 by Tara Holmes

After the devastating 8.8 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck Japan last week, millions are without power, adequate food or water supply. The earthquake was so powerful, that Japan moved 8 feet and the axis of the Earth shifted. The human death toll is still being determined, however, recent reports are comparing this natural disaster to the massive destruction caused during WWII; nothing has taken a similar toll on Japan since.

To add confusion to chaos, Japan is now dealing with a number of nuclear power plans that may face possible meltdown. A cause for local and global concern, Japanese officials have resorted to using sea water to cool a reactor that exploded a couple of days ago in hopes to keep it under control while electricity supplies remain down. Countries like France have begun using Japan as an example of why nuclear energy is too dangerous too rely upon for energy use. This argument however brings up the classic question: If not nuclear, then what? Nuclear does not contribute to harmful GHG emissions which contribute to climate change. Do we then regress to using coal on a massive scale? Nuclear, and proponents of nuclear energy, argue it’s the “cleaner” alternative to fossil fuels — although waste and potential nuclear meltdown, as what’s currently on display in Japan — remain serious concerns. Solar and wind technologies, while actively in use in many countries including the U.S., still remain at a high market cost, particularly solar, and are thus not able to complete with the cheaper, fossil fuel competitors that currently supply the bulk of the planet’s energy supply. It’s a sticky situation with many political and industry incentives at stake, but in the end, the fallout of nuclear energy may not be worth the energy it produces.

We are all hoping a full nuclear meltdown at one or more of the nuclear power plants does not occur on top of what the Japanese are already enduring, but at present time, it’s unclear what the outcome will be. Japan is receiving international aid, yet this tragedy will take many weeks, months, if not years to recover from. If you want to help, the American Red Cross is accepting donations: http://www.redcross.org.

Hydrofracking Poses Serious Concerns

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Tara Holmes

Photo by flickr.com/photos/arimoore/

On February 26th, The New York Times released a front page exposé on the new “gold rush” of natural gas exploration in the United States: Hydrofracking. Natural gas is a relatively plentiful domestic energy resource and some environmentalists and policy-makers alike have heralded the recent jump in natural gas exploration as a means to curb carbon emissions (natural gas, supposedly, releases less carbon into the atmosphere than fossil fuels like oil and coal).

Nevertheless, the NYTimes article presents a disturbing case against such massive, and oftentimes unregulated, exploration. Hydrofracking, or the injection of water and chemicals under high pressure into rock formations to extract natural gas, can directly impact the quality of groundwater, and inevitably, our drinking water. Drilling supporters have responded that no contamination of groundwater has been directly linked to the practice, however, the NYTimes reported that the EPA has been aware of the potential risk associated with this technique citing internal documents “from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers [that] show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.”

Potential dangers of hydrofracking include leaked radioactive materials and other drilling wastes, such as corrosive salts and carcinogens, which are inadequately treated before being discharged directly into adjacent rivers that supply drinking water. Alarmingly, the NYTimes also disclosed a never made public 2009 EPA document that concluded some hydrofracking treatment plants in Pennsylvania could not remove wastewater contaminants and were thus violating the law. Furthermore, other undisclosed studies by the EPA and a confidential study by the drilling industry found that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be completely diluted via discharge into rivers and other waterways. Yet, despite these startling findings, the EPA has taken no action to safeguard public water supplies and water sources downstream of hydrofracking wastewater and discharge sites have not been required to test for radioactivity. “In other words,” the NYTimes concludes, “there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.”

To learn more about hydrofracking and action steps, you can watch Gasland or visit the Sierra Club’s hydrofracking group at: http://connect.sierraclub.org/Team/Hydrofracking_Team.

Green Jobs get the Green Light

Posted on February 25, 2011 by Tara Holmes

Green jobs, no longer just an environmental buzz phrase, represent a critical component to the progressive growth of the US economy. On February 23rd, the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announced the availability of $40 million in green jobs development grants. The funds are authorized for the Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) and are meant to encourage the growth of the green economic sector, which includes everything from renewable energy technology and implementation, to policy and programmatic work. The announced grant will also support individual training and development within the green jobs sector to ensure interested candidates receive the proper credentials to be competitive within the green economy.

The High-Speed Rail Future?

Posted on February 16, 2011 by Tara Holmes

Following the release of President Obama’s 2012 federal budget, buzz around high speed rail projects in the US has increased. In the budget, $8 billion is allocated for high speed rail projects in FY 2012 and $53 billion is allocated over the next six years. Vice President Biden, a self-proclaimed train lover and regular rider, stated recently “We know that public infrastructure investment increases private-sector productivity, promotes growth, and creates jobs.”

Nevertheless, debate on up-front costs, accessibility and ridership continues to haunt the high-speed rail future in the US, even though Ray LaHood, the current Secretary of Transportation, believes that no realistic alternative currently exists that makes more sense stating “…there is no amount of money that could build enough capacity on our highways and at airports to keep up with our expected population growth in coming decades. America’s population will grow by 70 million in the next 25 years and 100 million in the next 40 years. Adding capacity to an interstate highway in the congested Northeast would cost more than $40 million per mile and cause enormous traffic backups, assuming we even had the space. A relatively “inexpensive” airport runway can cost half a billion dollars to construct.” From LaHood’s quote alone, it’s clear an alternative to the existing train, car and airplane must take tangible shape, and soon.

High-speed rail is already regularly and heavily used in other parts of the world – France’s TGV, Japan’s Shinkansen and Shanghai’s Maglev Train to name a few of the successful lines. SNCF, the company that operates the TGV in France, has in fact proposed its services to the US a number of times with little to no movement from the US government. In addition, Talgo, a Spanish-owned rail manufacturer, recently set up business operations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin hiring more than 100 American workers with anticipated growth, however, when Governor Scott Walker closed the door on Wisconsin’s high-speed rail segment, Talgo ended its operations in that region and moved out. Amtrak’s Acela, which runs along the bustling Northeast corridor between Washington, DC and Boston, has demonstrated great success and high ridership, yet cannot match the high-speeds of TGV or Shinkansen, for example, due to federal speed regulation and existing landscape challenges. Nevertheless, high-speed rail segments are currently in plan and construction in Illinois and California with the aim of more to come.

That said, President Obama’s 2012 budget highlights the need to move high-speed rail to the front and center of the economic agenda. High-speed rail creates long-term domestic jobs, decreases carbon emissions through an efficient method of mass transportation and connects US business centers and cities in a much more streamlined, accessible – and rapid – way than what currently exists. As Ray LaHood said, “President Obama is launching a high-speed rail network that will serve 80% of Americans and its legacy will be more than trains, tracks, and ties. It will be an economy on the move and a future that we are prepared to win.”

Warm Home Cool Planet

Sustainability begins at home

Category Archives: Politics & Policy