Author: Grist – the Latest from Grist

  • Take note, companies: Young workers want urban jobs

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Downtown ChicagoPhoto: Chicago Man via FlickrBusinesses ought to
    consider locating in walkable, culturally diverse city centers because that’s
    where young workers want to be, according to some liberal commie rag printed on
    recycled draft cards. No, scratch that, this argument comes from the Harvard Business Review.

    An article in the May
    issue opens with the news that United Airlines is moving its headquarters to
    downtown Chicago from the outer-ring suburb Elk Grove, while Quicken Loans
    plans to build headquarters in downtown Detroit. 

    “These companies are
    getting a jump on a major cultural and demographic shift away from suburban
    sprawl,” writes Assistant Editor Ania Wieckowski. “The change is imminent, and
    businesses that don’t understand and plan for it may suffer in the long run.”

    She finds that both
    young workers and retiring baby boomers want neighborhoods that offer shops,
    parks, schools, arts centers, and the like. The same preference holds for
    compact suburban cores, so it’s not as if every business in Chicago needs to
    find space in the downtown Loop. There’s data behind this: In the last U.S.
    census, 64 percent of college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds said they searched
    for a job after choosing the city
    where they wanted to live.

    It’s not just a matter
    of taste.  There are a lot of real
    problems associated with auto-dependent living, says Wieckowski.

    “Studies in 2003 by the
    American Journal of Public
    Health
    and the American Journal of
    Health Promotion
    linked sprawl to rising obesity rates,” she writes. “…
    Research by behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman and his team shows that out of
    a number of daily activities, commuting has the most negative effect on
    people’s moods. And economists Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer have found that
    commuters who live an hour away from work would need to earn 40% more money
    than they currently do to be as satisfied with their lives as noncommuters.”

    Wieckowski quotes
    Robert Fishman, a University of Michigan urban planning professor: “In the
    1950s, suburbs were the future. The city was then seen as a dingy environment.
    But today it’s these urban neighborhoods that are exciting and diverse and
    exploding with growth.”

    This is great stuff, and not just because it comes from a respected, clean-cut
    publication. Urban-minded employees can only do so much if their jobs require
    them to commute to the outskirts. Successful city centers require more than
    condos and retail shops-they need major employers.

    My one-time hometown of
    Grand Rapids, Mich. (metro population 770,000), is a perfect case study. There’s
    a fair bit of urban redevelopment and it’s got loads of creative types building
    civic culture through things like the public contest ArtPrize.
    Yet all of the region’s largest businesses-which include Amway, Wolverine, and the
    furniture maker Steelcase—are headquartered on the suburban fringe. The only
    large employers downtown are the government buildings. If more executives locate
    their companies downtown to attract new talent, as HBR advises, they can
    provide a major boost for compact urban designs, and all the social benefits they
    bring.

     

    Related Links:

    Gulf of Mexico: from magnificent resource to industrial sacrifice zone

    The story of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill [PHOTOS]

    Louisiana shrimpers file lawsuit over U.S. oil spill






  • Something’s wrong when our best option is burning an oil slick

    by Eric de Place

    Yesterday was a good day for an energy policy reality check. Because we are in a place where the environmentally responsible choice is lighting a giant oil slick on fire.

    And that really is the best option available to us right now. That’s how bad the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is. It is yet another horrifying example of the broken—and I would say morally bankrupt—energy system that Americans remain shackled to thanks to republicans and democrats alike.

    As a reminder, here’s what President Obama had to say one month ago when he announced expanded offshore oil drilling:

    …we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place.

    Can someone please remind me why exactly do we need to move beyond the “tired” debates?

    I’m not tired of those debates at all. In fact, I think we’re just getting started!

    Eight days ago the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded. Eleven people are missing, presumed dead. The rig is hemorrhaging 42,000 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the Gulf. The resulting slick is 40 miles wide and 80 miles long. And it’s moving toward a wildlife refuge, people’s homes, and a lucrative shellfishery. All of which means that the best option we have—the best option for the environment, I mean—is lighting an oil slick on fire.

    Super. Just as long as we move beyond the tired debates.

    This post originally appeared on Sightline Daily.

    Related Links:

    The Climate Post: Mighty winds a-blowin’

    Gulf of Mexico: from magnificent resource to industrial sacrifice zone

    Tragic oil spill = smarter climate bill?






  • Tragic oil spill = smarter climate bill?

    by Keith Harrington

    Several weeks before President Obama made the tragic decision to approve expanded offshore drilling, ten costal-state senators wrote a letter [PDF] to their colleagues John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) pressing the trio to keep expanded offshore drilling out of their now floundering climate and energy package.
     
    In the letter, the senators warned about the serious threats such drilling posed to their states’ coastlines:

    While technological advances have attempted to lower the environmental and economic risks of drilling, experience has shown that no technology is foolproof. Since 1964 offshore operators have had 40 spills of greater than 42,000 gallons … Far from being a thing of the past spills occur with alarming frequency … Drilling near our coasts poses a severe risk to our states’ coastlines and in turn to our coastal communities.

    As up to 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) of crude oil a day rise from the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon rig and make their way toward the Louisiana coast, the concerns expressed in that letter look more prescient than ever. As this spill drives home with frightening clarity, offshore oil drilling remains a dirty and catastrophically dangerous business—despite cynical and self-serving claims from Washington and the oil industry. The type of nightmare the senators warned of has tragically come to pass once again, with 11 workers killed and disastrous consequences for communities and ecosystems along a coastline already beset by the destructive forces unleashed by the burning of fossil fuels.
     
    The incident also highlights the major flaws of the KGL approach to climate policy making. In order to build support for a bill that is supposed to protect the climate, they’ve had to give away the store to the very dirty energy interests whose products are destroying it. In order to stop the damage being done by fossil fuels, the senators are pushing for an expansion of their production. If it sounds kind of crazy, that’s because it is.

    While it may be difficult and distasteful to see anything positive in a tragedy like this, the truth is this inevitable disaster couldn’t have happened at a more politically critical time—just as lawmakers were moving to codify the condemnation of our coastlines. In the same way that the Big Branch mining disaster caused elected officials to take a hard look at mining safety, one can only hope that the Deepwater Horizon spill will serve as the powerful wake-up call the president and Congress need to reverse the foolhardy course they have chosen regarding offshore drilling.

    To make sure this happens, we need our coastal-state senators to be the voice of reason once again, and reiterate their critique of the unreason of the KGL-Obama approach to climate policy:

    … we cannot support legislation that will mitigate one risk only to put our coasts at greater peril from another source.

    Perhaps now there’s a chance the president and the Senate leadership will actually listen. 

    Related Links:

    The Climate Post: Mighty winds a-blowin’

    Something’s wrong when our best option is burning an oil slick

    Louisiana shrimpers file lawsuit over U.S. oil spill






  • Cape Wind decision may take green power national

    by Todd Woody

    Offshore wind turbinePhoto courtesy phault via FlickrWhen Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced federal
    approval of the Cape Wind project on Wednesday, the media coverage tended
    to focus on the denouement of a nearly decade-long battle over the United States’
    first offshore wind farm.

    And indeed, our East Coast cousins put Californians to shame
    when it comes to green NIMBYism. (Not to dismiss legitimate environmental
    concerns over offshore wind farms, but the nine-year struggle to put 130 wind turbines
    in the Kennedy’s backyard in Nantucket Sound makes the permitting of Mojave
    Desert solar power plants look like a breeze by comparison.)

    The fight over Cape
    Wind isn’t over yet—the
    project still needs to obtain approval from other agencies, and opponents are
    likely to mount legal challenges.

    But what struck me is that the Obama administration’s move
    marks the emergence of an East Coast renewable energy industry that will help
    nationalize the transition to green power. To be sure, there are wind farms,
    solar installations, and biomass plants east of the Mississippi. But Big Green power has largely
    been a phenomenon of the West Coast and the Great Plains,
    regions rich in wind and sunshine.

    Plans to build massive solar power plants and turbine farms
    have spawned a renewable energy infrastructure of investors, bankers,
    utilities, manufacturers, and a nascent green workforce of builders and
    technicians. In other words, a political constituency to push for favorable
    state and federal tax incentives, renewable energy standards and climate change
    legislation.

    Putting aside profound ideological differences, the failure
    of Congress to pass climate change legislation and the interminable haggling boils
    down to regionalism—coal states versus natural gas, wind, and solar states.
    Just witness the willingness of Texas oil
    companies to bankroll a California ballot
    initiative that would put the Golden
    State’s landmark global
    warming law on hold. (Texas
    is becoming big wind state, but as a huge oil state it retains a much bigger
    stake in fossil fuels.)

    Now imagine the potential consequences of the federal
    government’s approval of Cape
    Wind.

    “This will be the first of many projects up and down the
    Atlantic coast which I expect will come online in the years ahead as we build a
    new energy future for our country,” Salazar said at a press conference in
    Boston on Wednesday.

    There are currently proposals to build nearly 2,500
    megawatts’ worth of offshore wind farms from Massachusetts
    to North Carolina,
    according to the American Wind Energy Association. Other developers want to put
    wind farms off the Texas coast and in the Great Lakes.

    Given that such wind farms would be close to major East
    Coast population centers, there’d be no need to construct long-distance
    transmission lines, which would avoid some costly environmental and political
    battles. (Though putting such lines under water comes with its own high costs
    and environmental considerations.)

    A series of Cape Wind-sized turbine farms—each generating,
    at peak output, the electricity of a mid-sized coal-fired power plant—would also
    create thousands of construction and maintenance jobs and put the U.S. in a
    position to compete in the massive megawatt offshore market now dominated by
    European companies and countries, with China not far behind.

    Silicon Valley venture
    capitalists have shied away from investing in wind, viewing it as a relatively
    “mature” industry that doesn’t offer many opportunities for technological
    disruption, the potential to upend an industry and make a lot of money. (Plus,
    wind farms are impractical off the California
    coast due to the depth of the ocean and the need to build floating platforms
    for the turbines.)

    But the rise of offshore wind appears to be changing this
    thinking.

    Offshore turbine farms can tap stronger and more consistent
    winds and thus generate more electricity. But they currently do so at up to
    twice the cost of land-based installations. That’s due to the expense of
    building and maintaining wind farms in deep water and constructing turbines
    that can withstand rough seas, high winds, and corrosion.

    Enter the VCs. To minimize those costs and create economies
    of scale, companies like Vestas and Clipper Windpower are developing massive
    turbines that can generate up to 10 megawatts each. (Most land-based turbines
    generate one to 2.5-megawatts.)

    That means there’s opportunities as well for startups
    engineering advanced gearboxes capable of operating gigantic turbines, motors
    and other materials, according to Jim Kim, a partner at Khosla Ventures, one of
    Silicon Valley’s leading green tech venture
    capital firms.

    Kim was on a panel I moderated Tuesday at Nordic Green, a
    conference held at SRI International in Menlo Park,
    Calif., that brings together Silicon Valley
    venture capitalists with entrepreneurs from Scandinavia,
    a region that knows a thing or two about Big Wind.

    Khosla Ventures has invested in Danotek Motion Technologies,
    a Michigan
    startup that makes generators and other components for wind turbines. The firm
    also participated in a round of funding for Nordic Windpower, a Berkeley,
    Calif.-based company that is developing new designs for wind turbines that
    promise to cut their capital costs and maintenance expenses.

    “We’re taking a new look at wind,” said Kim. “There’s
    opportunities in a space we have not previously played.”

    The winds of change are blowing from the East for a change.

    Related Links:

    The Climate Post: Mighty winds a-blowin’

    Cape Wind offshore project approved by Obama admin after nine-year battle

    Bobby Kennedy shares his hopes for renewables [VIDEO]






  • The story of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill [SLIDESHOW]

    by Grist

    Photo: Transocean

    The Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned by the Houston company Transocean, drilled the deepest oil well in history (35,050 feet) in September 2009 in the Gulf of Mexico. In January, the rig moved to a British Petroleum project 120 miles southeast of New Orleans.

    Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

    An explosion on the rig April 20 killed 11 workers and injured 17 others. Coast Guard and BP investigators are still searching for the cause.

    Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

    After a prolonged and unsuccessful effort to douse the fire, the remains of the rig sank to the ocean floor 5,000 feet below.

    Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

    A Coast Guard response team worked to clean up the surface spill on Earth Day, April 22, only to discover that the oil was leaking from the ocean floor.

    Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

    Within days the oil reaching the Gulf’s surface covered an area 600 miles in circumference, larger than Jamaica. On April 28 scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration revised estimates for the amount of oil escaping the well head from 1,000 to 5,000 barrels a day.

    Photo:  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    Emergency workers tried to use a remotely operated robot to activate the rig’s blowout preventor—a safety valve that caps the well—but that effort has so far failed.

    Photo: NASA

    A NASA satellite captured the slick, which is now hovering some 16 miles from the Louisiana coastline. The drifting oil could also reach Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama.

    Photo: NASA

    The spill is now expected to reach the Louisian coast by Friday, April 30. But due to strong winds, patches of oil may foul Louisiana’s Pass-A-Loutre Wildlife Management Area even sooner.

    Image: NOAA

    NOAA is closely tracking the progress of the slick. This map shows how the oil has moved over five days.

    Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

    Meanwhile, welders in Port Fourchon, La. worked to build a “recovery system chamber”—an underwater dome that would cap the leak and allow BP to vacuum out the oil. The technique is unproven at the 5,000-foot depth of the leak.

    Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

    Workers are preparing the base of the dome’s chamber. No dome of this size has ever been attempted.

    Photo: ©Tom Carlisle

    The encroaching oil threatens the wintering grounds of many bird species, such as the black-necked stilt and American avocets.

    Photo: Tom Puchner via Flickr

    The Gulf of Mexico is also one the two most important spawning waters for Atlantic bluefin tuna. Spawning season runs from mid-April through June. To find out about other wildlife in danger from the spill check out this graphic from The New York Times.

    Related Links:

    Gulf oil spill worse than expected, and getting worser

    Louisiana shrimpers file lawsuit over U.S. oil spill

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill






  • Gulf oil spill worse than expected, and getting worser

    by Mary Bruno

    Like the oil, there’s more news spilling out of (or is it into?) the Gulf of Mexico. And none of it is good.

    Where to begin? The 5,000-foot-long pipe that links the oil well to Transocean’s now submerged rig has sprung a third leak, which could explain why scientists at NOAA just upped their estimate for the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf from 1,000 to 5,000 barrels a day. (British Petroleum officials dispute the new figures.) The slick is about 16 miles off the Louisiana coast and closing in. Forecasters expect a landfall sometime on Friday, but strong winds could send a rogue oil patch into Louisiana’s Pass-A-Loutre Wildlife Management Area even sooner. Governor Bobby Jindal has asked the feds for help.

    Emergency crews set a small section of the spill ablaze on Wednesday in what they say was a “successful” burn. But attempts to use a remote vehicle to cap the belching well have proven unsuccessful so far, and the proposed solution for actually capturing the oil (with a submerged dome) is weeks out at best, untested at the 5,000-foot depth of the leak, and a little pie-in-the-sky, don’t you think? In a sign that BP may be in over its head in the cleanup department, Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary E. Landry hinted that the Defense Department may be scrambled to provide techno assistance to the effort.

    Meanwhile, Louisiana’s shrimping fleet is mobilizing to help deploy more than 20 miles of booms that may or may not protect the state’s fragile coastal wetlands from the encroaching slick, and the state’s fishing industry has filed a class action suit against BP, Transocean and others, charging negligence and seeking millions.

    On the bright side, I guess, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs assured us that President Obama, a fan of offshore drilling, is closely tracking the situation in the Gulf. In fact, the president started his day with a special 20-minute briefing on the matter and pledged “all available resources,” including the U.S. military, to try and prevent what looks to be an ever more likely environmental disaster.

    As the oil spreads, and the Gulf burns, we are reminded once again that the risks inherent in offshore drilling are simply not worth taking.

    Related Links:

    The story of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill [SLIDESHOW]

    Louisiana shrimpers file lawsuit over U.S. oil spill

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill






  • Can global warming give you kidney stones?

    by Kate Sheppard

    .series-head{background:url(http://www.grist.org/i/assets/climate_desk/header.gif) no-repeat; height:68px; text-indent:-9999px;} h3.subscribe-head{padding-left:5px;background-color:black;color:#ff8400;} dl.series-nav{margin-top:-15px;}

    The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp by Rembrandt van RijnPhoto: Wikimedia Commons. The 1995 Chicago heat wave was one of the most brutal weather events the United States has ever experienced. On July 13, the thermostat hit 106 degrees F. Many of the city’s poor and elderly residents had no air conditioning; many of those who did lost power as blackouts swept the city. Soon, thousands were suffering from dehydration, kidney failure, and respiratory distress. The hospitals were overloaded; the city couldn’t cope with the flood of 911 calls. Over the following days, more than 600 people died from heat-related illnesses, with hundreds of bodies temporarily stored in refrigerated meat trucks because the city morgues were full.

    The Chicago disaster was the worst heat wave in recent U.S. memory. But if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current path, health experts say catastrophic heat waves are likely to become far more common. Heat-related deaths in Chicago are expected to quadruple by 2050, up from the current annual average of 182, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a government study. Rising temperatures and accompanying atmospheric changes will alter disease patterns and aggravate all manners of medical conditions, from asthma to respiratory diseases to—believe it or not—kidney stones. In May 2009, the medical journal The Lancet and University College London’s Institute for Global Health issued a major report concluding that climate change is the “biggest global health threat of the 21st century.”

    All of this means new costs for the U.S. health care system—which will almost certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums. What is the insurance industry doing to prepare?

    So far, not much. In 2008, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the group representing state government regulators of property, health, and life insurers, announced that all such companies would be required to report both the risks and opportunities that climate change poses to their businesses. Some were eager to get started. Property insurers, says Joel Ario, chair of NAIC’s climate task force, “are probably the only people I know who are more worried about climate change than the environmentalists.”

    But the health insurers have been resistant. In a survey by NAIC, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s powerful lobby group, responded that it “has not adopted specific practices to identify climate change-related risks.” It added, “While we continue to monitor climate change as it pertains to the global health care situation there is no conclusive information currently available to address the effects of climate change on health care.” The American Council of Life Insurers argued in a letter that “knowledge in this area is not sufficiently developed to warrant an immediate, significant, costly, and possibly damaging change to the content and nature of annual statement reporting.” After pushback from the broader insurance industry, NAIC made disclosure voluntary on a state-by-state basis. (Some states intend to move forward with the mandatory disclosure policies as planned.)

    It’s true that there are many unanswered questions about exactly how rising temperatures will affect human health. But there’s mounting evidence that the impact will be significant, according to major research efforts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Health Organization, and the National Institutes of Health 2009 report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program found that any decrease in hypothermia-related deaths thanks to warmer winters “will be substantially less than the increase in deaths due to summertime heat extremes.”

    The U.S. health care community is so far behind on the issue of global warming that it’s only starting to calculate the cost of these changes. But what little research exists suggests the bill could be big. Lyme disease already costs more than $2.5 billion a year in medical expenses and lost work time—and climate models predict that the area where Lyme-carrying ticks can survive will more than double over the next 70 years. Any increase in asthma would likewise boost the condition’s massive price tag— currently $18 billion annually. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that kidney stones could increase by 30 percent or more in some areas of the U.S., due to dehydration. That would cost the U.S. health care system more than $1 billion per year.

    These are just a few of the anticipated health effects—accumulated, they could pose a major liability for insurers. It’s a “time bomb,” says Michael Gresty, managing principal of the sustainability consultancy Altanova, which works with corporate clients to reduce risks in this area. “When the industry is not prepared for a sudden shock like this, they either have to dig into their reserves, or they have to increase their premiums to cover the increased costs of providing care.”

    On the bright side, one underappreciated benefit of tackling climate change is that it could yield major health care savings. The European Environment Agency has found that the European Union’s plans to reduce carbon emissions 20 percent by 2020 would cut health costs by $44 billion dollars annually. No equivalent analysis has been done for the U.S. But a study by the Clean Air Task Force found that shuttering dirty coal plants could save more than twice as many lives as seat belts do each year. Programs to reduce emissions, like providing better public transportation, could also result in indirect health care savings by way of lower obesity rates and fewer respiratory and heart problems. And a January study from the University of Wisconsin found that the benefits of improved air quality that would come from weaning the country off fossil fuels would likely outweigh the short-term costs.

    Some insurance firms are beginning to acknowledge that climate change may affect their businesses. In a 2008 submission to the Carbon Disclosure Project—a voluntary program that helps major businesses assess climate change-related risks—Prudential said it had teams examining the implications of increased infectious disease and extreme weather events. The company is also “paying attention more” to markets like Mexico, India, and China, where diseases like malaria may spread, says Mary O’Malley, chair of Prudential’s environmental task force. But, she says, Prudential is only starting to evaluate the risks and hasn’t made substantial changes to its business model. Likewise, Aetna concluded in a submission to the disclosure project that global warming may lead to “higher health care costs for everyone.” But it, too, is in the early stages of assessing the problem.

    Smart insurers, says Gresty, should work to calculate climate-related risks and push for policy changes to reduce those risks. “That would be an investment in the future that would be protective of their business,” he says. And given the industry’s massive lobbying tab, policymakers might well listen. Says Harvard’s Epstein, “Through their own policies as well as national policies, the insurers can have a huge voice.”

     

    Related Links:

    EPA scientist warns Atlantic seaboard will be swallowed by rising seas

    What climate change means for the wine industry

    Details emerge on study of cancer near U.S. nuclear plants






  • They’re still blowing up our mountains and there still oughta be a law

    by Matt Wasson

    Cross-posted from iLoveMountains.org

    A month ago, before the nation’s attention was drawn to the tragedies at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and the oil rig off the Louisiana coast, the EPA issued a blockbuster announcement about a strict new guidance for the permitting of mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia. The announcement left many people—reporters, politicians, and the general public alike—confused whether or not the EPA had just put an end to mountaintop removal. The announcement generated headlines ranging from a fairly modest “E.P.A. to Limit Water Pollution From Mining” in the New York Times to “New regulations will put an end to mountaintop mining?” in the Guardian.

    Certainly at the press conference EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used some strong language:

    Coal communities should not have to sacrifice their environment or their health or their economic future to mountaintop mining. They deserve the full protection of our clean water laws.

    Mountaintop removal mine site above route 23 in Pike County, KentuckyPhoto courtesy iLoveMountains.orgOn a recent trip through eastern Kentucky, set up by our good friends at Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, the answer to whether mountaintop removal in Appalachia has come to an end was abundantly obvious.

    The photo of a new active mountaintop removal mine looming above Route 23 in Pike County, Kentucky, at right, tells the story.

    (All photos in this post were taken on April 18th in Kentucky: Here’s a link a to flickr photo set from that trip)

    To the extent that some in the media overstated the impact of the EPA’s new guidance, they can be forgiven. During the press conference, Jackson herself said, “You’re talking about no or very few valley fills that are going to meet standards like this.” 

    Valley fills are the typical disposal sites for the waste that is generated when coal companies blow the tops off mountains to access thin seams of coal. As community activist Judy Bonds of the organization Coal River Mountain Watch describes it, “A valley fill is an upside down mountain turned inside out.” Most—but not all—mountaintop removal mines require valley fills.

    But Jackson was also very clear that this was not a blanket ban on mountaintop removal permitting and that the guidance would not apply to permits that had already been granted. The standards Jackson said would lead to “no or very few valley fills” establish limits on the permissible level of stream water conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of salt—and an indicator of metals including toxic and heavy metals—in water. Remember the experiment where you put salt in a glass of water to make it conduct electricity and light a bulb?

    Toxic runoff from a valley fill in eastern KentuckyPhoto courtesy iLoveMountains.orgA plethora of recent scientific research has shown that conductivity higher than about five times the normal level downstream from valley fills is associated with severe impairment of the ecological communities in Appalachian headwater streams. The photo to the right that I took below a valley fill in Magoffin County, Kentucky, illustrates the trouble these standards create for coal companies. According to a huge compilation of scientific studies that the EPA simultaneously released with their guidance, conductivity levels below Appalachian valley fills average around 10 times normal levels. The bright orange water coming out of this valley fill indicates enormously high levels of iron, which in turn suggests both high conductivity levels and high levels of toxic and heavy metals regulated under the Clean Water Act.

    To be sure, the EPA’s move is a big first step that provides immediate protection to Appalachian families threatened with new mountaintop removal permits above their homes. It’s a tourniquet that will stop the hemorrhaging, but here are five reasons why this guidance doesn’t immediately or permanently put an end to mountaintop removal:

    The EPA’s action will not affect permits that have already been issued. Moreover, an excellent piece of reporting by Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward revealed that those existing permits will allow some companies to continue mountaintop removal operations without a hitch for the next couple of years.
    Not all mountaintop removal mines require valley fills and coal companies are already using loopholes by which they can obliterate miles of streams without the need to obtain a valley fill permit. The million or so acres of wholesale destruction that coal companies drove through a narrow loophole in the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act since 1977 is testament to their skill and creativity at exploiting loopholes.
    Some valley fills will still be allowed under this guidance and the EPA even provided a set of “best practices” by which companies can do mountaintop removal in a manner consistent with it. Moreover, there are a number of recent cases where coal companies went ahead and constructed valley fills without even bothering to obtain a permit.
    While the guidance takes effect immediately, it is a preliminary document released in response to calls from coal state legislators and coal companies for greater clarity on how the EPA was basing its decision whether to grant a valley fill permit for an Appalachian surface mine. The EPA plans to initiate an extended public comment period before the guidelines will be finalized.
    An agency guidance document is different from a formal rule and can be easily overturned by a new administration. Even if this guidance proves to be effective in curtailing mountaintop removal, environmental and community advocates still need to ask what happens when a hypothetical President Palin enters the White House in January of 2013 or 2017.

    There are any number of laws and regulations that affect surface mining, and so there is no single mechanism to ensure mountaintop removal is stopped permanently. But the first and most important step is for Congress to pass a strong law that prohibits the dumping of mine waste into streams.

    In 2002, Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey introduced just such a bill called the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310). Pallone, together with Republican Cristopher Shays, introduced this bipartisan bill in response to the Bush Administration’s catastrophic “fill rule,” which made it easier to permit mountaintop removal mining and for coal companies anywhere to dump waste into streams. Since then, people and organizations across Appalachia have supported Pallone’s bill by carrying a simple message to universities, church groups, and Rotary Clubs across America: they’re blowing up our mountains and there oughtta be a law!

    Over the past eight years, the nationwide organizing efforts led by groups in Appalachia have generated a remarkable 170 co-sponsors of the Clean Water Protection Act—more than almost any other bill before Congress. Unfortunately, the bill continues to be held up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, with West Virginia Congressman Nick Rahall recently claiming credit in a West Virginia newspaper for bottling it up.

    If Rahall’s contention is true, it’s a powerful testament to the level of influence he has accumulated, given that the bill has more cosponsors than any other of the 323 bills currently before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. More importantly, Rahall does not actually have the power to prevent the bill from being heard except through his influence over Chairman James Oberstar of Minnesota, who is the only one with the actual power to decide whether the bill is brought up in his committee.

    It’s particularly unfortunate that House Democratic leaders and committee chairs like Oberstar would give Rahall so much power over national policy, given how poorly his own constituents have fared under his leadership. After 33 years in office, Rahall’s district ranked 434th out of all 435 Congressional districts in Gallup’s recently-released 2009 well-being index rankings (see map below).

    The only district that ranked lower was Hal Roger’s neighboring district in eastern Kentucky. Notably, Rogers’ is the only district that has suffered more destruction from mountaintop removal mining than Rahall’s.

    A big question in the wake of the tragedy at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine is whether the obescience of coal state legislators toward the coal industry will change after the disaster. Traditionally, the pandering of Congressman Rahall and Senator Rockefeller toward Big Coal has been almost embarrassing to watch—kind of like witnessing an overly-exuberant public display of affection on a park bench. But when it comes to the safety of the guys in the hardhats, these gentlemen strike a very different tune.

    Given that the same company, Massey Energy, is by far the largest operator of mountaintop removal mines, was assessed the largest penalty in the history of the Clean Water Act, and has a record of environmental violations to which their horrible safety record pales in comparison, these legislators have a unique opportunity to lead their constituents in a new direction. And Senator Byrd of West Virginia has paved the way.

    One of the most under-reported elements of the EPA’s announcement was that Administrator Jackson specifically mentioned the EPA had worked with Senator Byrd to develop their new guidelines. She would not have said that without explicit approval from Senator Byrd. While Byrd has not explicitly called for an end to mountaintop removal or co-sponsored legislation to do that, his leadership in promoting a more thoughtful and reasonable view on climate and the future of coal in his state represents a sea change from the public statements of statewide elected officials over the past few decades. Rahall and Rockefeller would serve their constituents and their country far better if they followed Byrd’s lead.

    Is passing a law in this polarized Congress realistic?

    More important than the enormous number of cosponsors that legislation to stop mountaintop removal enjoys is the fact that the support is bipartisan. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), said in a press release:

    The new EPA guidelines are useful in stopping some inappropriate coal mining in Appalachia but Congress still needs to pass the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would effectively end mountaintop removal mining.

    Alexander, together with Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, introduced the Appalachia Restoration Act (S. 696) last year, a Senate companion to the Clean Water Protection Act designed to eliminate mountaintop removal (or at least permanently curtail it—we’ll see what the final language says after mark-up). That bill got a boost the same week of the EPA announcement when coal-state Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio announced he would become the 11th co-sponsor of the bill.

    Whether the Senate bill can survive the committee mark-up process in a form that Appalachian citizens groups can support remains to be seen, however. The Nashville Tennessean recently published an editorial that gave voice to the concerns many coalfield citizens have about forms of mining that may not be covered by the Senate bill, particularly cross-ridge mining. Cross-ridge is a type of mountaintop removal mining that requires little or no valley fill and is based on the assumption that a mountain can be put back more or less how it was after it’s been blown up—kind of like putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    A “reclaimed” stream in KentuckyPhoto courtesy iLoveMountains.orgThe photo to the right illustrates one of many problems with the theory that mountains can be put back together without causing major ecological degradation. While the type of mining shown in the photo would not be classified by state agencies as mountaintop removal (only part of the ridgeline has been removed and there is no valley fill at the headwaters of this stream), the impact of this mining on water quality is indistinguishable from the impact shown in the previous photo below a valley fill.

    Some insiders have also expressed concern that the EPA’s strict new guidance will take the wind out the sails of the campaign to pass a law, but from the perspective of Appalachian groups that have been working to ban mountaintop removal for decades, that concern is misplaced. The citizens of Appalachia have led this fight from the beginning, and have a much more vested interest in making these protections permanent than any group in Washington, D.C.

    It may be that some big environmental groups that have only recently made mountaintop removal a priority will move on to other priorities once the Administrative decisions are played out—and make no mistake that the contributions of those groups over the past few years in pressuring the Obama Administration to take action were exceedingly welcome and timely. But it was not the Big Greens that made mountaintop removal a national issue or whose organizing in communities across America has generated such broad bipartisan support of the Clean Water Protection Act and Appalachia Restoration Act.

    The people of Appalachia aren’t sitting around waiting for beltway insiders to tell them whether or how to pass a law, they’re just doing it. The legislative effort is led by the Alliance for Appalachia, an alliance of thirteen local and regional organizations that formed several years ago with the mission of ending mountaintop removal and bringing a prosperous new economy to the Appalachian coalfields that is based on sustainable industries.

    The Alliance for Appalachia represents by far the greatest number of people impacted by mountaintop removal mining, and the alliance is composed of some organizations that have been fighting Appalachian strip mining for decades. The battle to end mountaintop removal will not be over until the Alliance for Appalachia says it is, and I’m confident that won’t happen until, at a minimum, President Obama signs a law banning the practice.

    So what’s next?

    There is a window of opportunity right now to pass a strong law that will rein in mountaintop removal permanently. Also, with coal demand down dramatically due to the recession, now is the time to begin replacing mountaintop removal coal with aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia that are most dependent on this source of coal.

    From a local perspective, more delays, half-measures and uncertainty about the future of mountaintop removal will only lead to a myopic approach to rebuilding the Appalachian economy and bringing new jobs and new industries to the region.

    And from a global perspective, at a time when America is finally getting serious about addressing climate change and moving toward a 21st century energy future built around renewable energy, isn’t it absurd that we’re still fighting to stop the wholesale destruction of the most biologically diverse forests and streams on the continent in order to mine climate-destroying coal? Can we really address climate change if we can’t even stop mountaintop removal?

    For people around the country that want to see mountaintop removal end—and that should be anyone concerned about climate change, human rights, clean water, or endangered species—a great place to start is by telling your Senators and Representatives that the time to pass legislation to end mountaintop removal is now. There are plenty of tools on the web to make it easy.

    Let’s keep up the momentum, pass a strong law, and relegate mountaintop removal to its rightful place as just another tragic episode in American history books.

     

    Related Links:

    Lisa Jackson and the “Headline People Don’t Want to Discuss”

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    ‘Green tea party’ closes out U.S. Earth Day celebrations






  • Louisiana shrimpers file lawsuit over U.S. oil spill

    by Agence France-Presse

    An oil spill or olive oil fate?Photo courtesy HeyRocker via FlickrNEW ORLEANS—Two Louisiana shrimpers have filed a lawsuit accusing the operators of the rig behind a Gulf of Mexico oil spill of negligence, seeking millions of dollars in damages.

    The lawsuit, filed in federal court late Wednesday, alleges that “the fire, explosion and resulting oil spill was caused by the joint negligence and fault” of the defendants, a copy of the document read.

    The shrimpers are seeking class-action status on behalf of “all Louisiana residents who live or work in, or derive income from,” the Louisiana coastal zone, and who have sustained damages as a result of the oil spill.

    Defendants in the suit include BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Lloyds of London, Transocean’s insurers.

    Among other things the plaintiffs are seeking “economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial, but not less than five million dollars,” the legal minimum, the document read.

    A BP executive on Thursday agreed with a U.S. government estimate that the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico could be pumping up to 5,000 barrels a day of crude into the ocean, far more than previously thought.

    The Deepwater Horizon platform sank April 22, two days after a huge explosion that killed 11 workers, and a giant oil slick from the site threatens to pollute Louisiana’s fragile wetlands.

    Among other things, the lawsuit claims that the defendants failed to operate the oil rig properly; failed to properly inspect the rig “to assure that its equipment and personnel were fit for the intended purpose;” acted “in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of others;” failed to “react to danger signs;” and employed “untrained or poorly trained employees.”

    Furthermore, “the fire, explosion, sinking and resulting oil spill were caused by defective equipment,” and the defendants “knew or should have known of these defects and … are therefore liable for them.”

    Daniel Becnel, a Louisiana-based trial lawyer who filed the suit, saying that the plaintiffs “have a whistle blower on an adjoining rig saying 85 percent of the drilling pipe was not properly inspected” by the U.S. Minerals Management Service.

    “We knew that BP and Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon weren’t telling the truth,” said Becnel, a veteran industrial accident litigator.

    According to Becnel, the suit was filed “on behalf of all class members who have been adversely affected in Louisiana—fishers, shrimpers, oystermen, and others like … guides into the marshes.”

    Becnel also alleged that the oil slick could wreak havoc on U.S. shipping entering and leaving the Mississippi River.

    Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry, who is leading the government’s response to the disaster, warned that if the well is not secured the spill could end up being one of the worst in U.S. history.

    Related Links:

    The story of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill [SLIDESHOW]

    Gulf oil spill worse than expected, and getting worser

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill






  • How do you argue against the growth juggernaut?

    by Lisa Hymas

    I’ll be talking tomorrow to filmmaker Dave Gardner, who’s making a documentary called Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity.  He wants to hear about my choice to be a GINK—green inclinations, no kids.  And I’ll be offering thoughts about growth in general.  Any suggestions about points to make or ideas to share?  How can we best fight the assumption that what society needs is growth, growth, and more growth?  As Edward Abbey so memorably put it, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

    Here’s a trailer for the film, with commentary from Bill McKibben, Paul Ehrlich, and Dick Lamm, among others. 

    Related Links:

    14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

    Sit, stay, recycle [VIDEO]

    Ask Umbra on fertility awareness, grilling, and Earth Day pledges






  • Hey, Harry, thanks for pimping my book!

    by Jeff Goodell

    Dear Sen. Harry Reid,

    By derailing or delaying—or whatever it is you’re doing to—the introduction of a climate bill in the U.S. Senate, you have once again raised the question about whether the richest, most technologically sophisticated nation that has ever lived is capable of taking swift action to save itself from almost certain environmental and economic calamity. In other words, despite millions of years of evolution, when it comes to thinking about the future, we’re still as dumb as bugs.

    As I’m sure you know, I just published a new book about geoengineering called How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate. Geoengineering, a term that scientists define as the deliberate,
    intentional modification of the earth’s climate system to reduce the risks of
    global warming, is a dangerous and controversial idea. It involves things like spraying sulfur particles into the stratosphere and brightening clouds to reflect away sunlight and cool the earth.

    These and other geoengineering ideas (there are lots more) are likely to have serious unintended consequences—and they do nothing to fix other serious problems associated with rising CO2
    levels, such as ocean acidification.

    But if we aren’t up to the task of solving global warming in the rational way, by cutting greenhouse-gas pollution, it is increasingly likely that we will turn to geoengineering as a quick fix.

    I must say I am conflicted about this possibility. Geoengineering may turn out to be necessary in order to reduce the risks associated with ever-rising greenhouse-gas pollution, but it is fraught with risk.

    On the other hand, a focus on geoengineering would be great for my book!  Indeed, your recent actions make my book look prescient.  And for that, I thank you.

    It’s just that it doesn’t have to be this way. The
    world has been waiting a long time for America to pull its head out of the
    sand and deal forthrightly with the climate crisis. The political moment is ripe for a big bold move—put a price on carbon, jumpstart the cleantech revolution, show the
    world that America gets it.

    So why not take the plunge?

    Yeah, the tea partiers ranted about “cap and tax.”  And yes, I know, this criticism should really be addressed to President Obama, who—let’s be frank—has still not given any sign that he understands that this little problem with cooking the planet is more than just another political issue. Where is the big climate speech? Where is the political muscle? I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who noticed that the president flew to West Virginia to attend services for the 29 miners killed in the recent mining tragedy, but sent only brief videotaped remarks to the tens of thousands of climate activists who rallied on the
    National Mall last weekend
    . So hey, if the president isn’t going to show any spine on this, why should you?

    I want to be honest with you, Harry. I’ve been out on a book tour for
    the past few weeks and I’ve run into a lot of people who are really freaked out
    about what the hell is going on in America. They are starting to think our failure to do anything meaningful to address global warming is symbolic of a larger failure of democracy. And I have to say, they have a point. What exactly is the role of government in our society if not to protect us from our own short-term stupidity and greed?

    Anyway, if you help to ensure that America does nothing to address rising greenhouse-gas
    pollution in the near future, you have done a lot to make geoengineering a more
    plausible scenario.

    If you’re going to force us in this direction, maybe it’s time to announce your support for a federally funded research program to study the risks of
    geoengineering. The program wouldn’t cost much—$100 million a year would be a good start. It should include funding for more sophisticated computer modeling of potential geoengineering technologies, more funding for observational studies, maybe even some money for sub-scale field tests of planet-cooling technology and new observational satellites. Get NOAA involved, and NASA, and DOE. Fund studies on the potential human impacts of geoengineering, and offer up some cash for political scientists to think
    long and hard about governance structures.

    If you’re going to send us down this road, Sen. Reid, there really is a lot to
    think about.

    I know this is a big ask. But whether you want to admit it or not, this is exactly where your leadership is taking us. Who knows—history might well remember you
    as the man who made the world safe for geoengineering.

    Sincerely,

    Jeff Goodell

    Editor’s note: This is the fifth in a series of posts from Jeff Goodell, author of How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineering and the Audacious Quest to Fix Earth’s Climate. See all of Goodell’s posts here.  And check out our recent interview with Goodell about his new book.

    Related Links:

    On the Graham-Reid flustercluck

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration

    A near thumbs-up for Joe Romm’s ‘Straight Up’






  • The politics of the Gulf oil spill

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    The ecological fallout
    of the Gulf oil spill continues as emergency teams plan
    to set fire
    to the surface slick in hopes of keeping it away from the
    coast.

    The political fallout
    continues as well:

    More bad news for the Senate climate and energy bill, as coastal-state senators with key votes voiced concerns about drilling provisions in a potential bill. They include Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.); Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.); Mark Warner (D-Vir.); Kay Hagan (D-N.C.); and George LeMieux (D-Fla.), according to The New York Times.

    Even more bad news for the Senate bill, as BP, who was leasing the drilling rig, planned to join Shell Oil and ConocoPhillips in endorsing the bill and appearing at the rollout announcement this week (which was scuttled because of Senate drama). At this point, BP’s endorsement might be a kiss of death.

    Charlie Crist dropped his support for offshore drilling today after
    flying above
    the slick that is spreading not far from his home state. “If
    this doesn’t give somebody pause, there’s something wrong,” said the Republican
    Florida governor, who is running for Senate as an independent. “This is, as I
    understand it, a pretty new rig with modern technology. As I’ve always said, it
    would need to be far enough, clean enough and safe enough. I’m not sure this
    was far enough. I’m pretty sure it was not clean enough. And it doesn’t sound
    like it was safe enough.”

    Sens. Lautenberg, Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) called for a safety
    investigation in a letter to Senate leaders. The trio, all strong opponents of offshore drilling in the past, call
    the disaster
    “a sobering reminder of the real risk from oil drilling.”

    “The explosion, ensuing
    fire, and continuing spill raise serious concerns about the industry’s claims
    that their operations and technology are safe enough to put rigs in areas that
    are environmentally sensitive or are critical to tourism or fishing industries,” they wrote. “This may be the worst disaster in recent years, but it’s
    certainly not an isolated incident.”

    Investigation and litigation. Every branch of the government is now
    involved in investigating the disaster, as Brad
    Johnson notes
    . In the House, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, are investigating the companies’ emergency plans; the Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service
    are looking into the causes; and in federal court, the wife of one of the victims has
    sued
    BP, Transocean, and Halliburton for negligence.

    Obama is sticking with his plan to ramp
    up offshore drilling
    , says Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He’s making sure things are investigated, though.
    (Phew. We were worried there for a minute.) “We need the increased
    production. The president still continues to believe the great majority of that
    can be done safely, securely and without any harm to the environment.”

    That response doesn’t seem
    to jibe with Rahm Emanuel’s famous advice to
    never let a serious crisis go to waste. If this isn’t a good occasion to talk
    to Americans about the problems posed by fossil
    fuels, well, here’s how “Turkana” at The Left Coaster puts it:

    In a time of crisis, you don’t continue to promote that
    which is causing the crisis. You teach people how it is causing the crisis and
    why we have to stop it. You change the very nature of the conversation. You use
    the science. You use every political skill and opportunity you have. You teach
    people that we have to change the nature of our behavior. You teach people that
    we have to change the nature of our economy. You teach people that we don’t
    have time to waste.

     

    Related Links:

    On the Graham-Reid flustercluck

    Oil burn operation begins in Gulf of Mexico

    Cape Wind offshore project approved by Obama admin after nine-year battle






  • On the Graham-Reid flustercluck

    by David Roberts

    All right, all right, I suppose I have to say something about the Graham situation, as much as the entire subject just saps my life force.

    For those of you who haven’t been keeping track: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has threatened to pull his support from the climate bill he’s been working on—even help filibuster it—if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) follows through on his recent vow to push immigration reform in the Senate this year. Reid backed down a little earlier this week, saying he’d put energy ahead of immigration, but now Graham has dug his heels in and said he’ll bail on climate if Reid pushes immigration at all this session. In response, Reid accused Graham of “gall” and said he wouldn’t allow the bills to be played off each other. And that’s where things stand.

    Now, to a normal human being, this doesn’t make much sense (though perhaps it’s redundant to say that in reference to the U.S. Senate). Why are the two issues even related? WTF is going on?

    Here, in no particular order, are a few of the background considerations at work:

    Immigration got forced: The Arizona racial profiling bill has pushed immigration back into the spotlight and increased the need for federal action.
    Dems need Hispanics: Reid is in a frantic battle for reelection and badly needs Nevada’s considerable Hispanic population to turn out; he thinks/hopes a fight on immigration would do the trick. More broadly, the Dems face a dire midterm election situation and they all need Hispanics to turn out. (By contrast, no one thinks enviros can or will have any effect on turnout whatsoever, except for in a few coastal enclaves.)
    McCain fears immigration: Graham’s dear friend John McCain (R-Ariz.) is currently battling a right-wing challenger in a state where he’s increasingly unpopular. He has traditionally been a “maverick” on immigration, but he’s been tacking right on that like everything else. Mostly he’d just like to avoid it. Lots of folks think Graham is doing a solid for McCain.
    Immigration is theater: Virtually no one thinks an immigration bill can actually pass this year; there’s been little work on it and there’s no actual legislative language. So lots of folks view this as a political stunt by Reid for purely self-interested reasons.
    Climate is doomed without Graham and he knows it: There is no Plan B on climate legislation in the Senate right now. If it falls, apart the best anyone can hope for is the tepid “energy-only” bill that Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is once again pushing. (Nice party discipline, Bingaman. Way to be helpful at just the right moment.)
    Graham’s exposure: Graham has lately been taking on the “maverick” role recently vacated by the Incredible Shrinking McCain. He’s pretty much the sole Republican interlocutor on both climate and immigration, and he’s been taking heavy fire from the right for both. By all indications he’s been participating in the climate process in good faith, but he’s understandably leery about having both these issues in play at once.

    And so on. Sad to say, this is the U.S. Senate, where matters of incredible inter-generational consequence are decided by the whims and raw electoral interests of elderly white men with enormous, fragile egos. Whee!

    To me, the central and most salient fact is that Graham is holding all the cards. Whether you think he has a legitimate beef with Reid or he’s just looking for an excuse to bail, it’s difficult to see what leverage could be brought to bear on him. And please, let’s not waste our time discussing how important climate is. That’s irrelevant to this situation. The only question is, who’s got power and leverage over whom?

    Graham right now is about the only sane Republican in the Senate. If he wants to, he can take his balls and go home. He can single-handedly sink both immigration and climate. There just won’t be bills on either subject without his participation.

    What pressure can Obama and Reid bring to bear on him? Public haranguing? That only strengthens him within his party. Can they withhold support or money? No. Can they threaten his legislative priorities? No; alienating him leaves their own agenda stranded.

    What then? How is this going to play out? Right now, nobody knows. I see three ways it could go:

    1. Dems crack and abandon immigration until after the midterms. This would be a pretty huge political blow at this point. Now that it’s been made into this battle of wills, immigration groups are all fired up. If Reid tosses them overboard now, after all this, Hispanics could well stay home en masse during the midterms. Reid could lose; Dems could lose both houses. On top of all that, it will be an extraordinary humiliation: one Republican bending the entire Dem party to his will. I suppose Reid and Obama could do this if they were completely dedicated to getting a climate bill, but there’s been no sign of that intensity of support.

    2. Obama flatters Graham’s ego. Graham is similar to McCain in that he’s a self-glorifying narcissist who loves being the center of attention. It’s possible that Obama could turn on the charm, invite him over for a one-on-one, do a press conference with him, something to show the world how Very Very Important Graham is. Sadly, the fate of the world really does turn on such matters.

    3. Dems find a new Republican. Graham has total power over the fate of the climate bill because he’s the only Republican working on it—supposedly he’s a “bridge” to other R votes. If another Republican got an attack of conscience and realized that it’s important to address the largest problem of our age, he or she could step forward and take over Graham’s role. This is, to put it mildly, unlikely. The Maine moderates (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) wouldn’t impress any of their colleagues, and anyway, Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has given Collins an easy out on this with their pony bill. Scott Brown (Mass.) could potentially be brought aboard, but he’s not brave or smart enough to do it first. George LeMieux (Fla.)? Richard Lugar (Ind.)? I don’t see it.

    All those options seem unpleasant or unlikely, so … it’s a real pickle. I’m sure right now Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Jim Messina, Phil Schiliro, and any number of congressional staffers are working the phones, fumbling around for some way out.

    Even if they find it, though, this kind of botched, half-ass rollout does not bode well for a bill that was already facing steep odds—a bill that, though it allegedly has the support of industry groups, has not been seen by anyone, even other senators. (It’s the Sasquatch of bills, as Kate Sheppard puts it.)

    At this point if Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman pull a rabbit out of the hat, it will be a bona fide miracle.

    ———

    Read more perspectives on the Graham-Reid mess:

    The upside of the Senate climate bill’s troubles—by John Passacantando
    Why immigration reform is getting more traction than climate change—by Larry Shapiro
    Is Harry Reid making the world safe for geoengineering?—by Jeff Goodell

    Related Links:

    Hey, Harry, thanks for pimping my book!

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill

    Senate Dem leader vows action on both climate and immigration






  • With subsidies in the balance, Obama speaks up for ethanol

    by Tom Philpott

    Lest we forget, he was once a corn-belt senator. While the BBC explores the dark underbelly of the biofuel craze, President Obama affirms his support for crop-based fuels.

    From The Hill:

    President Barack Obama on Wednesday touted ethanol—both the current variety and next-wave fuels—as a key part of his energy strategy and a way to revive rural economies.

    Obama endorsed expanded ethanol production during a speech at a Macon, Missouri plant owned by POET, the country’s largest ethanol producer.

    “I believe in the potential of what you are doing right here to contribute to our clean energy future but also to our economy,” Obama told plant workers who produce 46 million gallons per year.

    Obama’s declaration of support comes at a pivotal moment in the history of government subsidies for ethanol production. The long-standing $0.45/gallon tax credit for blending ethanol into the gasoline supply is set to expire this year. The credit costs the Treasury billions per year. In 2009, for example, 10.5 billion gallons of ethanol entered the auto-fuel supply at a cost of $4.7 billion to taxpayers.

    That tax break has been in effect for years, and it’s highly unlikely that ethanol would ever have entered the U.S. gas supply without it. Ethanol provides just two-thirds the energy per unit volume of gas; it has traditionally needed the tax break to even approach competitiveness with petroleum-based fuel. I mean, how else could energy-light corn ever compete with energy-dense petroleum as an auto-fuel feedstock?

    In 2007, Congress and President Bush dramatically upped government support for ethanol. They preserved the tax break, while imposing a “renewable fuel standard” which mandated that gasoline manufacturers mix ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into the fuel supply.

    The mandates insured a growing market for ethanol, so you might think the industry would be sanguine about letting the tax breaks expire on schedule this year. Not so; ethanol’s political champions are fighting tooth and nail to keep the tax breaks in place. They are like spoiled children demanding an extra piece of cake, and to be paid for eating it, too.

    Two corn-fed senators, Chuck Grassley (R-Nebraska) and Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), have introduced a bill to extend the tax credits. They also want to extend another ethanol goodie due to expire: a long-standing tariff on foreign ethanol, which gives the domestic product yet another market advantage.

    I’m agnostic about the tariff. With the “renewable fuel standard” in place, the tariff is probably all that’s keeping the U.S. market from being flooded with cheap Brazilian ethanol. While Brazil’s sugarcane-based product is likely more ecologically robust than our corn-based firewater, that’s not saying much. Indeed, for all the hype it’s gotten, Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol is fertilizer-intensive, relies on cheap and exploited labor, and is implicated in rain forest deforestation.

    But I object to the extension of the tax credit; it should be opposed. The renewable fuel standard mandates that 15 billion gallons of ethanol enter the fuel supply by 2015. That will happen with or without the tax credit. If it’s going to happen anyway, why on Earth should taxpayers surrender $0.45/gallon for a grand total of $6.75 billion, in tax revenues?

    Rather than mandating and subsidizing huge increases in biofuels, a truly progressive government would be investing in efficiency and low-impact fuels like wind and solar. In his remarks affirming his faith in biofuels, Obama didn’t specify whether or not he supports Grassley and Conrad’s absurd bill. Let’s hope he opposes it.

    Related Links:

    BBC on the impact of biofuels on Paraguay’s ecology and farmers

    Watch out, Kerry—Big Ag’s not done with your climate bill

    Scientists show ‘growing’ fuel is waste of energy






  • Peabody Energy exec misleads during coal debate

    by Bruce Nilles

    Last night I debated the role of coal in our country’s energy future with Peabody Energy VP of Government Relations Fred Palmer on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis.

    The debate took place in front of more than 500 students and community members at Graham Chapel on campus, and was watched live online by nearly 4,700 additional interested observers.

    Here are four minutes of highlights:

    If you want to watch the full debate, click here.

    The debate was a great conversation about the dangers presented by coal and there was frank dialogue between Mr. Palmer and I about important issues.  Unfortunately, when trying to make the case in favor of a dirty and dangerous source of power like coal, Mr. Palmer strayed from the truth. There were two factual errors in particular I wanted to mention here.

    If you go to minute five of the full length debate video, you’ll hear Mr. Palmer talk about how Peabody Energy cares about safety. If that’s true, then why does his company operate one of the coal mines with the most safety violations in the U.S.? From a Business Week article:

    Peabody’s Air Quality No. 1 coal mine in Knox County, Indiana, tops the U.S. in citations, with 1,419. The company’s operation in Saline County, Illinois, has accumulated 1,217 citations, according to (Mine Safety and Health Administration) data.

    The Knox County mine has more than twice the number of citations as the Upper Branch mine in West Virginia that was the site of the terribly sad mining disaster earlier this month. This track record of unsafe mines certainly does not support Mr. Palmer’s claims that Peabody cares about safety.

    Later in the debate, Mr. Palmer said that it is safer to work in mine than to work at Wal-Mart. I have to disagree, and I think most Americans would, too, especially after reading this article in USA Today about how(d)ays missed because of serious injuries in the nation’s mines have spiked sharply this decade.

    Mr. Palmer’s second inaccurate statement last night was that Peabody has not participated in mountaintop removal coal mining since he’s been there. Mountaintop removal is the irresponsible practice where mining companies blow the tops off mountains to reach a thin seam of coal and then, to minimize waste disposal costs, dump millions of tons of waste rock into the valleys below, causing permanent damage to the ecosystem and landscape.

    Despite Mr. Palmer’s claim that Peabody does not partake in this hazardous mining practice, the facts show that he joined Peabody in 2001, and up until 2007, Peabody owned mountaintop removal coal mines in West Virginia and Kentucky.

    Our country can do better than coal, and our college campuses for sure can do better than coal. I really enjoyed the time spent talking to the students at Washington University about the need to switch from coal to clean energy, and about not believing the “green” coal babble the industry is spouting now.

    I was also inspired to see so many young people at the debate last night who believe that our nation can and should be powered by clean energy. We even got a great example of that belief today when the Obama administration approved the Cape Wind offshore wind project in Massachusetts. These students are a great reminder that our future is bright.

    After the debate, this bright future was highlighted by student and debate organizer, Arielle Klagsbrun. “Our struggle to remove coal’s influence from our campus is a struggle going on all across America, and we will succeed,” Arielle said in a press release the students put out earlier today. “In six years, our generation, the millennial generation, will make up one-third of the voting population. We are not asking for an end to coal, we are ending it.”

    Related Links:

    Cashed Coal Plants

    Obama blandly invokes ‘American Dream’ in tribute to miners who were denied it

    More lessons from Wales for moving beyond coal






  • IHOP stacks up to Double Down competition

    by Jen Harper

    Courtesy of IHOPMan, I sure could use a cheesecake sandwich right about now. But instead of bread on either side of the cheesecake, I want pancakes. And then I want to top it with strawberry compote and whipped topping. And because that probably won’t be enough, let’s tack on eggs, hash browns, and bacon on the side. Unfortunately, this is no dream (or grodie nightmare).

    Not to be outdone by KFC’s disgusting Double Down (that’s two fried chicken breasts instead of a bun, with bacon and cheese in between), IHOP’s stepped up with its own answer to the question, “How can we keep Americans fat?” Pancake Stackers, a crustless cheesecake sandwiched by pancakes—for a limited time, thank goodness, according to ads.

    No word on the calorie count for the new cheesecake-pancake sandwich, but the company’s regular Pancake Stackers combo (no cheesecake in between and with all the sides mentioned above) tops out at 1,250 calories, more than double the Double Down, which is 540 calories.

    So cheesecake sandwich for breakfast, Double Down for lunch, and what for dinner? Here’s one idea:

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Like what you see? Sign up to receive The Grist List, our email roundup of pun-usual green news just like this, sent out every Friday.

    Related Links:

    Sit, stay, recycle [VIDEO]

    Not aging fast enough? Drink a soda!

    DIY cheap, green burial with dryer lint






  • BBC on the impact of biofuels on Paraguay’s ecology and farmers

    by Tom Philpott

    A soy plantation in the Amazon rainforest, Brazil. Nilton Ricardo, BrazilPhotosEveryone should listen to this BBC report (unfortunately not embedabble) on the “price of biofuels.” It digs into a key question: what does Europe’s appetite for biodiesel mean for people and ecosystems in the countries that produce the feedstocks?

    Focusing on Paraguay, the BBC comes up with answers that aren’t pretty. The economic benefits of the biofuel craze accrue to large plantation owners and the global agribusiness firms that buy their soy and provide the inputs. Tracts of of the Amazon get leveled for soy production. Small-scale tenant farmers get forced off their land and into penury.  Inevitably, agrichemicals rain down and seep into streams, wreaking havoc on communities.

    In short, we see not the production of a “green” fuel but rather an ecological calamity in service of the idea of green fuel: a highly profitable travesty masquerading as a “solution.”

    The focus is the Europe-South America consumption-production chain, but our own corn-ethanol program is implicated. Like crude oil, agricultural commodities like corn and soy are fungible. Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill don’t distinguish between soy grown on Iowa prairie lands and, say, the the Brazilian savanna. In industrial production, soy is soy; and corn is corn. As biofuel production expands, it demands more cropland—affecting farmers’ planting decisions and make therm scramble to increase yields.

    Ponder the fact that the U.S. government uses mandates and tax breaks to divert more than a third of the U.S. corn crop into ethanol—and that proportion will rise to more than 50 percent by 2015, if mandates in the Renewable Fuel Standard hold true. As recently as 2004, ethanol burned through just 13 percent of the crop.

    All of that corn being diverted into our gas tanks means that somewhere, some industrial agriculturalist sees an opportunity to plow up new land for more corn production. Or switch from soy to corn, putting upward pressure on the price of soy and encouraging more soy in places like the Amazon rain forest or Brazil’s savanna.

    Let’s put this into perspective. The U.S. grows 40 percent of the globe’s corn. If one third of it gets transformed into ethanol, that means that more than one out of every eight corn kernels grown in the world now goes into U.S. drivers’ gas tanks. When one half of our corn goes to ethanol, one kernel in five will help power our car fleet.

    Let’s think about it another way. The mighty U.S. corn crop sucks up more than 40 percent of the synthetic nitrogen and mined potassium fertilizer used in U.S. agriculture. (Figures extrapolated from this USDA document—and a pox on that agency for presenting this key information in a rather raw Excel document, and not a thought-through HTML.) So again, given that a third of corn goes to ethanol. that means nearly 15 percent of our consumption of this those ecologically devastating, geopolitically troubling resources can be explained by ethanol.

    And for what? All to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by about 6 percent. Reaching that stunningly modest level required decades of steady government support in the form of multi-billion-dollar annual tax breaks, plus research grants and mandates.  And to be clear, our ethanol habit barely——if at all—reduces the total amount of fossil fuel consumed. Production of corn-based ethanol offers a razor-thin net energy gain—and that, only if you grant a generous credit to distillers grains, an ethanol byproduct, as a livestock feed. As I’ve shown before, the mush left over from industrial ethanol production is riddled with antibiotic residues and heart-ruining mycotoxins—not the kind of stuff you’d want to feed to animals you plan to eat (even though the meat indsustry welcomes distillers grains as an “economical” alternative to whole corn).

    In short, government-mandated biofuel programs, both in Europe and here, are distractions from the necessary task of reducing fossil energy consumption. They will inevitably cause the destruction of climate-stabilizing ecosystems like rain forests and seperate small-scale farmers from their land. Indeed, both are lready happening.

    I can see one hopeful sign from the U.S. biofuel experience, though. It has proved that the U.S. government, even under such alleged free-market zealots as Reagan and Bush II, actually is capable of making sustained public commitments to alternative energy. (Leave aside their loyal and expensive support of the crude-oil industry).

    The trick for progressives is to not just attack public support for ethanol, but also to try to shift that spirit of public investment to technologies and projects that actually conserve fossil fuel, like mass transit, dense cities, and efficiency. Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth is circulating an online petition demanding an end to “dirty corn ethanol subsidies.”

    Related Links:

    Watch out, Kerry—Big Ag’s not done with your climate bill

    Scientists show ‘growing’ fuel is waste of energy

    EPA intern offends sensitive meat-industry souls






  • Oil burn operation begins in Gulf of Mexico

    by Agence France-Presse

    Emergency crews battle flames at the Deep Horizon oil rig before it sank last week. Oil is now spewing into the Gulf of Mexico at 42,000 gallons a day.Photo: U.S. Coast GuardNEW ORLEANS, Louisiana—Emergency teams launched a
    “controlled burn” operation on Wednesday to stop a giant oil slick in
    the Gulf of Mexico from spreading off the ecologically fragile Louisiana coast.

    A fleet of
    skimming vessels deployed by the U.S. Coast Guard and British energy giant BP
    swept the most dense concentrations of crude into a 500-foot-long
    fire-resistant boom.

    “This oil
    will then be towed to a more remote area, where it will be ignited and burned
    in a controlled manner,” said a joint statement released by BP and the
    Coast Guard.

    The drastic move
    was deemed necessary because a huge slick with a 600-mile circumference has
    moved within 23 miles of Louisiana’s wetlands—an important sanctuary for
    waterfowl and other wildlife.

    Mopping up the
    oil if it reaches the wetlands would be next to impossible and officials fear
    the slick could devastate the state’s $2.4 billion a year fisheries industry,
    which produces a significant portion of U.S. seafood.

    Coast Guard
    spokesperson Lieutenant Commander Cheri Ben-Iesau said response units would
    evaluate how well the initial burn-offs work before attempting any larger
    operation to burn up the slick.

    “Today they
    are just seeing this as a kind of trial fire to see if it even can be
    done,” Ben-Iesau told AFP, adding that extensive corralling of the oil
    into denser concentrations was required before the actual burning would start.
    “I believe that they use an actual accelerant to start it. You can’t just
    throw a match in it and have it start.”

    Oil is spewing
    at the rate of 42,000 gallons a day from the riser pipe that connected the
    Deepwater Horizon platform to the wellhead before the rig sank last week after
    a deadly explosion that killed 11 workers.

    BP has been
    using four robotic submarines some 5,000 feet down on the seabed to activate a
    giant 450-tonne valve, called a blowout preventer, and shut off the leaks.

    As a back-up,
    engineers are frantically constructing a giant dome that could be placed over the leaks to trap the oil, which would then be pumped
    up to containers on the surface.

    A rig is also on
    standby to drill two relief wells that could divert the oil flow to new pipes
    and storage vessels. But they would take up to three months to drill, and the
    dome is seen as a better interim bet even though it could take up to four weeks
    to construct.

    Tuesday’s oil
    burns could present their own environmental problems, sending huge plumes of
    toxic black smoke into the sky and leaving mucky residue in the sea, although
    Coast Guard officials dismissed the threat.

    “The
    closest shoreline is a very remote area,” said Ben-Iesau. “If any
    mammals that are seen in the area, we will obviously have to hold off till that
    threat is gone.”

    “We don’t
    want anyone downwind from the smoke,” she said, adding, “there are
    obviously dangers inherent in these sort of operations working offshore with a
    lot big vessels.”

    The
    Environmental Protection Agency was to continuously monitor air quality during
    the operations, and officials gave assurances the burning would immediately be
    halted should safety standards be breached.

    Coast Guard Rear
    Admiral Mary Landry, who is leading the government’s response to the disaster,
    warned on Tuesday that if BP fails to secure the well, it could end up being
    “one of the most significant oil spills in U.S. history.”

    The U.S.
    government has promised a “comprehensive and thorough investigation” into the explosion that sank the platform and pledged
    “every resource” to help stave off an environmental disaster.

    The rig, which
    BP leases from Houston-based contractor Transocean, went down last Thursday 130
    miles southeast of New Orleans, still burning off crude two days after the
    blast that killed 11 workers.

    The widow of one
    of the dead has filed a lawsuit accusing the companies that operated the rig—BP, Transocean, and U.S. oil-services behemoth Halliburton—of negligence.

    BP
    chief executive Tony Hayward said he was confident an environmental disaster
    would be averted, acknowledging that strong first-quarter results Tuesday had
    been overshadowed by the “tragic accident.” Landry noted that the
    deadly rig accident has not disrupted offshore gulf oil production, which
    accounts for more than a quarter of the U.S. energy supply.

    Related Links:

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill

    Cape Wind offshore project approved by Obama admin after nine-year battle

    Automakers go ‘green’ in Beijing






  • Live Chat with Umbra Fisk

    by Grist

    Umbra Fisk chatted live with our Friends with Benefits on April 21, 2010. And in the midst of tackling a range of questions from TV dinners to diapers to vampires, Umbra was asked to prom. Watch the replay to read her answer. Join us for next month’s Live Chat with Anna Lappé, author of Diet for a Hot Planet on May 11. Sponsored by Grist’s Friend with Benefits program. Keep the conversation going by making a donation to Grist today.

     <a href=“http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f6331115b7” mce_href=“http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f6331115b7” >Live Chat with Umbra Fisk</a>

    Related Links:

    Foreign Policy mag spotlights ‘peak phosphorous’

    Ask Umbra interviews ‘Dirt! The Movie’ director Bill Benenson

    Eco dog treats confound canines and humans alike






  • Cape Wind offshore project approved by Obama admin after nine-year battle

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Turbines like these will likely be coming to Cape Cod.Photo: Andjohan via Flickr

    It’s been the mother of
    all NIMBY battles, but now it’s closer to resolution: The Obama administration OK’d
    the nation’s first offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound today, with
    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar making
    the announcement
    in Boston.

    “I am approving the
    Cape Wind project,” said Salazar. “This will be the first of many projects up
    and down the Atlantic coast.”

    The $1 billion project
    will include 130 turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. It’s expected to produce
    enough electricity to meet 75 percent of the demand on the Cape and the nearby
    islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard.

    Local
    opponents—including the Kennedy family—have opposed the project during a siting
    dispute that’s lasted more than nine years. They’ve argued that the project would
    disrupt the marine environment, mar ocean views, create too much noise, and
    hurt commercial fishing. Many clean-energy advocates, on the other hand, have
    argued that it’s an important flagship project for a fledgling industry that
    needs to succeed if we’re going to put up a serious fight against climate
    change. The result has been a public
    intra-movement dispute
    among environmentalists, the most prominent example
    of wilderness conservation priorities and clean-energy infrastructure running
    into conflict.

    Massachusetts Gov. Deval
    Patrick (D) and Ian Bowles, secretary of the Massachusetts executive office of
    environmental affairs, have long championed Cape Wind and are claiming the administration’s
    decision as a victory.  Bowles called the
    announcement “the shot heard ‘round the world for American clean energy.”

    Of course, other
    countries are already far ahead of the U.S. in offshore wind: farms are churning off the coasts of Denmark, the U.K., and other coastal European
    nations. In fact, Germany’s first offshore farm was just launched.

    And even now, it’s not
    clear how quickly the U.S. will catch up. Cape Wind faces several more regulatory hurdles and court challenges
    that could take years to resolve.  And
    other offshore-wind proposals are likely to face serious scrutiny and
    opposition too.

    Related Links:

    The politics of the Gulf oil spill

    Oil burn operation begins in Gulf of Mexico

    Automakers go ‘green’ in Beijing