wrdforwrd

Fracking is getting heat—or at least a lot of attention—at the grassroots and at the federal levels. President Obama this month issued an Executive Order forming an interagency working group “supporting the safe and responsible development of unconventional natural gas resources.”

“Unconventional” in this case is hydraulic fracturing—aka fracking—a natural gas extraction method in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground at high pressure in order to fracture, or crack open, layers of rock, making oil and natural gas accessible. Fracking makes it easier to get at the large deposits of oil and gas from shale formations.

But many also contend that it is risky and, in effect, cruel and unusual punishment to the earth’s crust and water resources. Fracking can release harmful pollutants into the air and underground water tables. There is also alarming evidence that the process causes earthquakes, which apparently is what happened last year at a fracking site near Blackpool, England. Read the rest of this entry »

Somewhere in China, a professor of political science and ethics, Won Tru Tang, begins his lecture.

“Today students we’ll review some recent statements in the news from America. It will be up to you to determine which, if any, of these statements were actually said, and which are fake. This will be part of next week’s testing on lies, delusion and reality. So listen carefully! Chou, will you please turn on the audio compilation?”

First speaker: “There is no such thing as global warming. The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is. Climate change is an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.

“We have to have all sorts of government regulations now because of the threats of hydrofracking. It’s the new bogeyman. It’s the new way to try to scare you … And they’re preying on the Northeast, saying, ‘Look what’s going to happen. Ooh, all this bad stuff’s gonna happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff, what’s gonna happen?’ Let me tell you what’s going to happen: Nothing’s going to happen, except they will use this to raise money for the radical environmental groups so they can go out and continue to try to purvey their reign of environmental terror on the United States of America.”

Second speaker: “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. I believe that climate change is occurring. The reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

The tape pauses briefly; the same voice then says: “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

“My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward. And that means let’s aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power.”

Third speaker: “You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming. You notice they don’t call it global warming anymore. It’s weather control. The Copenhagen treaty on climate change can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful.

“There is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. Over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!”

Fourth speaker: “The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere.”

Another brief pause in the tape; the same voice says: “I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.”

The tape ends and Professor Won dismisses the class. A student approaches the professor.

“Surely sir, these audio clips are a splicing or computer trick! They can’t possibly have actually been spoken by serious, intellectually honest and consistent people. If true they are truly clueless and dangerous fools.”

The professor merely smiled.

[Image: Hong Kong – climate change canvas by Oxfam International via Flickr] Read the rest of this entry »

We knew or at least surmised that this was true, but the really scary conclusion from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is that it could get way, way worse: Without more ambitious actions by governments global greenhouse gas emissions could increase 50 percent by 2050.

The warning from the 34-member-nation OECD, whose mission is to “promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world,” in a recent report, OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction, is that rising living standards over the coming decades will mean increased demands for energy, food and natural resources. This will result in sharply higher GHG emissions and pollution.

OECD says the report presents the latest projections of socio-economic trends over the next four decades, and their implications for four areas of concern: climate change, biodiversity, water and the health impacts of environmental pollution. Read the rest of this entry »

Image by billb1961 via Flickr CC

An excellent way to put a stop to fracking is to do it town by town and county by county.

New York Supreme Court Justice Phillip R. Rumsey ruled last month that the Town of Dryden, NY has the right to adopt zoning rules that prohibit natural gas drilling that uses the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, method of extraction.

In Anschutz Exploration Corporation v. the Town of Dryden and the Town of Dryden Town Board, Rumsey concluded that the town’s zoning ordinances are not preempted by the state’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law. Read the rest of this entry »

If you are on the fence about that new Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt, how does taking $10,000 off sound? That’s right, those thinking about jumping into the EV market could pocket a nice new incentive in the form of a $10,000 rebate, which is part of President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan.

While lacking in specifics, the proposal is a boost and a change in approach – buyers of electric vehicles currently are eligible for a $7,500 tax credit for the tax-filing year in which the vehicle is purchased, while the new rebate program would allow consumers to slice $10,000 off the top of an EV at the time of purchase.

It’s a big incentive for potential buyers who are scared off by the pricing of EVs, which are still a bit beyond the comfort zone of what many consumers are prepared to pay, even though their yearly savings at the gas pump will be substantial. It should also boost sales for vehicles such as the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf. For example instead of making payments on a Volt, which lists at $41,000, a buyer would see that financing hit drop to $31,000. For the Leaf, the base price would drop to about $26,000 with the rebate.

It’s argued that the tax credit idea—a product of the Bush Administration—favors wealthy buyers who can more easily afford higher upfront payments in exchange for a lower tax rate in April. The Obama rebate makes EVs more accessible to the average American.

The rebate could also apply to natural gas vehicles and other high tech, green cars, according to reports.

Assuming Congress will go along with this, which is a major if given the parlous conditions there, it’s a great idea that’s a win-win-win for the makers, sellers and buyers of EVs. It’s also a big win for the environment, sustainability and energy independence. That’s a lot of wins.

It’s far from a done deal, but this could change a lot of minds about EVs, especially now that gas prices are spiking—again. For example under the rebate plan, a Leaf might be financed for about $300 a month, which is probably what many people have to scrape up each month for gasoline in their current driver.

Like a mixed green salad, GreenBiz Group‘s fifth annual 2012 State of Green Business report offers a jumbled view of the current green and sustainable business landscape.

“Things aren’t going as well as we’d hoped,” said Joel Makower, principal author of the 84-page report. “For the first time since we began doing our assessment, in 2008, several of the indicators have taken a downward turn.”

Each year GreenBiz examines sustainable business by tracking 20 indicators of progress that measure such things as carbon emissions, e-waste recycling, green office space, vehicle fleet emissions, toxic emissions, energy efficiency, employee commuting, corporate reporting, and a dozen other metrics. Read the rest of this entry »

A pox on both their houses. Legal battles surrounding the Deepwater Horizon 2010 drilling disaster will be just as messy—and way lengthier—than the spill incident itself.

The latest shots in what bids to be a never-ending exercise in passing the buck and liability were fired last month when oil giant BP went to court in New Orleans claiming that the U.S. contractor Halliburton (you know – Iran, Dick Cheney? That Halliburton) botched the cement work on the doomed oil rig. Read the rest of this entry »

It took a while—20 years!—but the EPA’s historic decision to regulate mercury emissions are cause for a major celebration and at least a dollop of optimism that the U.S. is on the right environmental path heading into the new year. That is if the Republicans don’t mess it all up by winning the White House in November. (Writing that just sent a major chill up my spine.)

Not long ago I wrote about how a few miniscule drops of mercury can contaminate a 20-acre lake and the fish that happen to reside there, thanks to coal-fired plant emissions. That’s a major reason why the EPA’s decision to regulate the emissions of mercury, lead and other toxic pollutants from coal- and oil-fired plants is a major victory for the health and environmental welfare of the nation. And for jobs.

Please ignore the scare tactics from Big Coal and right-wing wackos about blackouts, job losses and energy security risks as a result of the rules. That’s their big lie and they are sticking to it no matter what.

“Congress ordered the EPA to regulate toxic air pollution more than 20 years ago when it passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” said Rachel Cleetus, senior climate economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The EPA has been regulating most industries up until now, except for the biggest polluters—coal and oil-fired power plants. The public health benefits far outweigh the costs. And contrary to the doomsday predictions of industry and their allies in Congress, the lights will stay on.” Read the rest of this entry »

Hey kids! Here’s an idea: Let’s inundate the global market with our cheap dirty coal! We won’t be burning and polluting the atmosphere here in the U.S., merely transporting the coal on 1.5-mile long trains through densely populated areas of the Pacific Northwest, where it will be exported to foreign markets. We’ll boost our exports, help our balance of trade and create jobs!

That’s the gist of the coal industry’s argument for proposals to export tens of millions of tons of coal through the Pacific Northwest to China and other Asian nations.

But major organizations including the Sierra Club, the Sierra Student Coalition, Climate Solutions and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility are gearing up to derail the coal train idea. Read the rest of this entry »

In The Stand, one of Stephen King’s early (and imo best) novels a nuclear power plant becomes a central part of the action, and indeed is instrumental in keeping the world from descending into barbarism.

It sort of makes the point that, as The Police say, “When the world is running down/You make the best of what’s still around.” There is something to be said for the role of nuclear power as part of the modern-day, post-carbon-based fuel energy mix.

But a revised and updated version of the Sierra’s Club‘s classic Nukespeak throws some needed clear thinking about the inherent dangers of nuclear energy and concludes, as the first edition did, that it’s not really worth the risk.

Nearly 30 years ago, in the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the first edition of Nukespeak from Sierra Club Books was published and immediately framed public debate on the immense risks of nuclear technology.

The extensively revised and updated edition promises to continue that debate, especially in the aftermath of the March earthquake and tsunami that struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan.

According to the Club, the original 1982 edition broke through the “linguistic filter of the nuclear mindset,” by documenting how nuclear developers confused their hopes—remember the dream of energy too cheap to meter?—with reality, covered up damaging information, harassed and dismissed scientists who disagreed with official policy, and generated false or misleading statistics to bolster their assertions about the benefits and safety of nuclear power. Read the rest of this entry »