Author: CCAN Supporter

Elkton, VA wants clean coal. Who wants to tell them there ain't any?

On Monday, the town council of Elkton, Virignia submitted a request to Governor Kaine asking him to seek out state and federal funding for a proposed “clean” coal research facility outside the Shenandoah town. A short hop from Harrisonburg and James Madison University, the town hopes to harness the 100 or so jobs created by the project as a boost to the local economy.

Called the Elkton Energy Research Center, the facility would focus on developing two different types of carbon capture and sequestration, both of which are not yet commercially viable. Spearheaded by county democrats, hopes are that federal cash devoted to CCS tech will find its way to the town of only 2,000 residents situated along the south fork of the Shenandoah River. The proposal would require massive amounts of start-up cash from state and federal governments, approaching the $100 million mark.

coal Virginia

A "warm and fuzzy zealot"

CCAN’s first annual MD Climate Champions Awards Ceremony was a resounding success. The highlight of the night may have been when House Majority Leader Kumar Barve, upon receiving his award, thanked CCAN Director Mike Tidwell by jokingly describing him as a “warm and fuzzy zealot.” Nearly 200 people turned out on a rainy Tuesday to eat, drink, celebrate Maryland’s many clean energy victories, and honor those who made those victories possible.

Betsy Taylor received the first award. Betsy has dedicated her remarkable career to promoting social justice and environmental stewardship. She founded and served as director of The Center for a New American Dream. In 2007 she founded and now serves on the board of 1Sky. She’s also an author and has worked with a wide range of philanthropies to guide resources to good causes, especially climate protection.

Jennifer Stanley accepted the next award on behalf of both her and her husband, Ted. The Stanleys have for many years been leading supporters of environmental protection – including strong action on climate change – through their philanthropy. Their foundation, the Town Creek Foundation located in Easton, Maryland, funds much of CCAN’s work, including Earthbeat Radio.

George Leventhal came next. As a Mongtomery County Councilmember, George has achieved many clean energy successes in the past six years. He pioneered the campaign to switch county government buildings

Youth to Congress: Bold Climate Policy, NOT Corporate Giveaways!

Cross posted from here

Hilary here, blogging live from the Rayburn House Office building, room 2322, where 18 young people have been waiting in line for the Hearing on Allocations since 5:45am. Dedicated young voters are rallying to attend today’s hearing on ACESA, demanding 100% auction of pollution credits, not free permits for polluters. We are making t-shirts, so that our message of “Free Allocations Hurt Future Generations” and “100% AUCTION” is clear. Some students are having a Bake Sale to raise money to buy off a politician- since apparently that is the only way to get language in federal legislation. Peebles wil be updating the blog as the morning progresses- and you can follow #powershift09 on twitter for hearing updates!

9:00 A.M. Continue reading

youth

Natural Gas

Cross-Posted from: HERE

Part 2

This is my second post in a 3 part series about what role natural gas can play in a low carbon sustainable future, and what role it should play. Part 1 is right here. This post is going to explore the reasoning against and for natural gas use.

I will cover the environmental/social justice, carbon emissions, and national security arguments surrounding natural gas.

Environmental/Social Justice/Carbon Emissions: So it turns out, natural gas drilling is exempt from clean water laws. Thank you Vice President Cheney. Apparently natural gas companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they are using in a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, where millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals are injected at a very high pressure down and across into horizontally drilled wells. This causes the rock layer underground such as shale to crack, and the natural gas from the shale flows up from the well since the sand particles injected hold open the fissures. Hey, I wonder what happens to the chemicals? Apparently gas drilling has degraded water in hundreds of wells in Colorado alone. Ohio had it’s own report on contmination problems from the drilling of natural gas. Another fear from drilling and the pipelines that carry the gas is of an explosion. In fact, Ohio has it’s own report of a drilling related explosion. Here is how Pro Publica described it…

“A spark ignited the natural gas that had collected in the basement of Richard and Thelma Payne’s suburban Cleveland home, shattering windows, blowing doors 20 feet from their hinges and igniting a small fire in a violent flash. The Paynes were jolted out of bed, and their house lifted clear off the ground. Fearing another explosion, firefighters evacuated 19 homes in the small town of Bainbridge. Somehow, gas had seeped into the drinking water aquifer and then migrated up through the plumbing.”

For a good graph of all the natural gas accidents that have occurred state by state, check here.

What’s the counter-argument? Well, if you’re the Natural Gas Industry, you would point to the regulations natural gas does have. But who trusts the suppliers to tell you that natural gas is clean? The above information clearly shows it’s not clean. The legitimate argument you would get from the part of the environmental community that is pro-natural gas(or apathetic about natural gas), would be to compare the extraction process of natural gas to oil drilling, or to how we extract and store our coal. I know many could consider the effects of mountaintop removal to be worse. The implications of oil spills are also pretty daunting. Coal slurry dam disasters can be absolutely devastating. The counter-argument regarding extraction would be that compared to coal mining and oil drilling, natural gas extraction is the lesser of the evils.

What about emissions? This again depends what you’re comparing the natural gas to. I would consider this a valid source, since although it’s on the natural gas industry’s page, the source they’re taking this emissions profile from is the Energy Information Administration(EIA). It’s also along the lines of what I’ve read from both pro and anti natural gas sources.

Fossil Fuel Emission Levels – Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Pollutant	Natural Gas	Oil	Coal
Carbon Dioxide	117,000	164,000	208,000
Carbon Monoxide	40	33	208
Nitrogen Oxides	92	448	457
Sulfur Dioxide	1	1,122	2,591
Particulates	7	84	2,744
Mercury	0.000	0.007	0.016
Source: EIA – Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998

As you can see natural gas has about 56-57% of the CO2 emissions of coal, and 71% of oil. Carbon Monoxide is comparable to oil, and far less than coal. Nitrogen Oxide is another greenhouse gas, and is far less concentrated in natural gas than coal and oil. When it comes to sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury, natural gas is far cleaner. So this is how one could look at the glass half-full for natural gas. On the other hand, with greenhouse emissions that at best are 50% of coal(which is extremely dirty), I wouldn’t exactly call natural gas a clean fuel. The issue we run into again though is that in a country that’s nearly 50% dependent on coal, we could have a World War 2 style effort to produce clean renewable energy, and it would still take a considerable amount of time to displace the coal. The same goes for coal intensive developing countries such as China and India. Time we don’t have. The argument can be made, and it has been made, that while we’re adding renewables to the mix, we need to also increase our use of natural gas in order to displace coal so that we can more dramatically reduce emissions. In fact, there is considerable evidence that Britain is going to double it’s Kyoto targets, and achieve a 23% reduction below 1990 levels by 2012 in emissions, largely because it switched to natural gas from coal. Of course there were measures to increase usage of renewables and to have a smarter transportation system, but natural gas was a significant factor in this achievement.

The LNG Exception? One big outlier in all of this emissions data is the additional environmental damage and life-cycle pollution of Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG). Here, natural gas is frozen to -260 degrees to become a liquid, and then shipped on giant tankers, often halfway around the world to countries that use it. This is what we import. According to a study by the Carnegie Mellon Institute, when you take into account the full life-cycle of carbon dioxide emissions of coal versus LNG, their total CO2 emissions are “comparable”. I quote that since I want to add context and say that according to their findings, LNG has 89% of the carbon dioxide of coal, although that isn’t mentioned, so you’ve got to pull out a handy calculator. It’s also worth noting that this is only taking into account carbon dioxide emissions, and not nitrogen oxide emissions, which is also a greenhouse gas. If you note the chart above, you’ll see that if you take NO2 into account for the full life-cycle, the greenhouse emissions comparison of the life-cycles of LNG and coal won’t be quite as close. The important thing to take away from this information on LNG is that it’s considerably dirtier than ordinary natural gas, and can approach the pollution of coal. Whether or not you call them “comparable” depends on your criteria. Coal is still dirtier, but not by as much as it was before we accounted for LNG. When it comes to transportation, the US Department of Energy says LNG that’s used for our transportation needs doesn’t save energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy Independence!(or not?) One of the things that natural gas advocates say is that that the US has large supplies of natural gas, and that we can use natural gas to help us become energy independent by using it in our cars. It’s very interesting then to note a natural gas analysis all the way out to 2030 by the Energy Information Administration. Two very telling charts are on page 8, which show natural gas supplies by region in the world, and by country in 2008. Let me rank them by region. In order of trillion cubic feet we’ve got the Middle East with 2549, Eurasia with 2020, Africa with 490, Asia with 415, North America with 283, Central and South America with 262, and Europe with 167. The other chart shows the US currently has 3.4% of the world’s natural gas reserves. That should sound familiar to our current oil dilemma. Additionally, if you look at natural gas production over the last 30 years, you’ll see that even as our demand has increased, our production levels have remained the same. Compare that with what’s a steady increase in our natural gas imports, and take a look at who we’re getting those imports from. Then glance back up at which regions of the world have most of the remaining supplies.

This information leads to one conclusion regarding our national security. If we dramatically increase US natural gas consumption(and even if it only holds steady), we’re inevitably going to be importing more and more of our natural gas each year from the countries around the world that we’re trying to become energy independent from when it comes to oil. Additionally, this imported gas would be in the form of LNG, which means it would be more polluting than the dry domestic natural gas. This raises 2 concerns. The first is that on our current course, we’re going to have the same dependency problems with natural gas with currently have with oil. The second is that the idea of replacing coal with natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sounds good, until you’re importing LNG and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions you’ve cut is far less than anticipated or desired.

So, to sum up what this part 2 analysis has brought to light…

Extraction/Social Justice? At worst drilling for natural gas is just as bad as coal and oil. At best, it’s dirty and can harm communities, but not as dirty as coal or oil, and won’t cause as much harm to communities as coal.

Carbon Emissions? Natural gas is 56% as carbon intensive as coal, 71% of oil, and has less emissions in other important areas as well such as NO2, sulfur, and mercury. However, when you bring LNG into the equation and calculate for lifecycle emissions, you’re no better than oil for transportation, and marginally better than coal for baseload power.

International Security? US natural gas production is reaching its limits, our imports are increasing as our demand goes up, and the parts of the world which have the natural gas do not like us. This means increased use of natural gas will not solve our energy independence problem.

Stay tuned for my verdict on the role of natural gas, what it will be, and what it should be, in PART 3.

natural gas

Column on Mountaintop Removal

Cross-posted from: here

I have a column out today in the paper about the Obama Administration’s shameful approval of 42 mountaintop removal permits. I want to be sure to post it for you.

Mountaintop removal: No science, no ethics

MATT DERNOGA

The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved 42 of the 48 permit applications for mountaintop removal operations in West Virginia, deeming them environmentally responsible. A review of mountaintop removal would serve the EPA well.

Mountaintop removal is a way for the coal companies to avoid having to mine the mountain the traditional way. Instead, they use millions of tons of dynamite to blow up the mountain so they can easily extract the coal underneath. Dynamite is cheaper than coal miners; no jobs created here. The toxic waste from this process is then dumped into the nearby valleys and riverbeds below, which can ruin the entire ecosystem.

More disturbing is the effect on the communities that live in the area. Coal slurry is a toxic byproduct of the mining waste, with billions of gallons stored in dams around the mining sites. At mountaintop removal sites like those in the Appalachia in West Virginia, this can shatter the community in two ways.

There was an incident last December in Tennessee where a coal slurry dam between Nashville and Knoxville burst, causing 500 million gallons of sludge to flow into the tributaries of the Tennessee River, which is also the water supply for millions living in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky. It was estimated to be 40 times larger than the infamous Exxon Valdez spill.

Living near a mountaintop removal operation and living near a coal slurry dam is like living in a war zone. Explosions are going off all the time. Ash and rock is raining down around communities. Machinery is clanging all day and night. The air and water is contaminated with toxic metals and chemicals, including arsenic, lead, selenium, boron, cadmium and cobalt. A friend of mine recently traveled to a West Virginia community to see the devastation and said residents have numbness in their extremities because what they are ingesting is so toxic.

In desperation, coalfield residents of West Virginia wrote a letter to the EPA and Department of Interior begging them to stop the madness. “You are our last hope for justice at this point,” they wrote.

The EPA responded to a different letter instead. They wrote back to a West Virginia Congressman who was determined to ensure the permits went through. The EPA letter said, “I understand the importance of coal mining in Appalachia for jobs, the economy and meeting the nation’s energy needs.” You know the rest.

The health hazards mentioned came to light as a result of the EPA’s own analysis and report on the impacts of living near coal ash and slurry ponds. Both President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have pledged to base decisions on science. Science has returned to the White House, we’re told. Exactly what kind of “science” are we talking about? This reminds me of my sixth grade “science” fair project that involved lots of burnt bread and no numbers.

Jackson, the EPA and Obama have made a mockery of science. They placed the coal industry above human decency. They let the people of Appalachia’s hopes slip right through their fingers. In so doing, they’ve undermined (no pun intended) the moral integrity of America and failed West Virginia, as well as the rest of the country.

Matt Dernoga is a senior government and politics major. He can be reached at mdernoga@umd.edu

Sources

On the 42/48 approved…

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/05/15/rahall-epa-clears-42-of-48-permits-for-approval/

The EPA’s response to the Congressman

http://wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/epa2rahall.pdf

Link for the coal slurry disaster

http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/coal-slurry-dam-disaster/ (article link is in the first paragraph, butthere’s a lot of background info in the entire post).

The following two highlight the dangers of being near coalslurry ponds.

http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub640.cfm

http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs/FINAL%20COMING%20CLEAN%20EJEIP%20Report%2020090507.pdf

Source for the letter..

http://www.grist.org/article/urgent-letter-to-epa-and-

coal environmental justice mountaintop removal

Hope for Surry shines through the smog

Surry, Virginia, is about as picturesque as they come. A portrait of the rural south, Surry and its neighbor, Dendron, offer testament to the unique charm and unavoidable beauty that accompanies the idea of small-town America. Wary of outsiders and exceptionally warm toward neighbors and friends, the residents of Surry County understand the inherent splendor of a life that is unhindered by external influence. Naturally, it comes as no surprise that Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s proposed dirty, unhealthy, coal-fired power plant has been received with very few open arms in the community. Of course, this has not dampened the large cooperative’s desire to take advantage of a small town with its share of economic difficulties. With the promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, ODEC has repeatedly stressed the so-called benefits to be won from the massive plant’s construction. On Monday evening, Dendron’s town council brought these claims to task during their regular meeting. Dendronites are engaged in a fight against the health of their community, their children, and the irreplaceable beauty of the surrounding environment.

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative Surry Coal Plant

A Common Person's Guide to the Federal Climate Bill

A Common Person’s Guide to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

On May 21st, following months of work, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), a 932-page piece of climate legislation. There have been mixed reactions from environmental and climate groups, but most groups are in agreement that it needs to be strengthened going forward. For some groups the problems they see with the bill have led to their public withdrawal of support. These groups include Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen and Friends of the Earth. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network also does not support the bill in current form.

Below is a summary analysis of the main features of the bill.

–Cap and Trade System: The bill would establish a “cap-and-trade” system that sets mandatory and declining limits on greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years. By 2050 it projects reductions of 83% from 2005 levels for the United States. It does this primarily through the establishment of 1) a “cap” on emissions and the annual issuance by the government of permits to emit greenhouse gases, both of which–the cap and the emissions permits–come down steadily year after year, and 2) a tradable market to buy and sell those permits to emit global warming pollution. That’s why it’s called a “cap-and-trade” system.

–Wide-Open Buying and Selling: Significantly, this market is open to anyone, not just those entities which emit greenhouse gases. For example, Wall Street firms whose primary purpose is to make money for their investors can buy and sell pollution permits. Anyone, whether Goldman Sachs or John Q. Public, can get into this newly-created market. From page 430 of the bill: “The privilege of purchasing, holding, selling, exchanging, transferring, and requesting retirement of emission allowances, compensatory allowances, or offset credits shall not be restricted to the owners and operators of covered entities, except as otherwise provided in this title.” Especially following the sub-prime mortgage/credit/banking crisis, there is concern among many people, including some on Capitol Hill, about the potential for this system to be abused by those out to make quick and big profits.

–Goals and Targets: The document states that one of its prime objectives is to help the world “avoid atmosphere greenhouse gas concentrations above 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent; and global surface temperature 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the pre-industrial average.” However, a growing number of scientists, journalists and climate activists believe that we need to reduce emissions more deeply if we are to have a good chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.

–2020 Targets: It projects a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases (ghg) from 2005 levels by 2020. This is about 3% below U.S. ghg levels in 1990; 1990 is the baseline year used by the nations of the world. There is an additional 10% reduction of ghgs projected via investments in the prevention of deforestation outside the United States, and there could be a few percent more reductions through other means. This could add up to about a 20% reduction by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. The world’s international climate negotiators have called for industrialized countries to reduce their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

American Clean Energy and Security Act climate change global warming

Small Steps, Big Problems

Cross-posted from: here

Typically, the health care industry, the automotive industry, and the energy industry have teamed up with Republicans on major issues in Washington. For many years, these alliances have derailed health care reform, bold fuel economy standards, and significant legislation to combat climate change. It would appear these special interests have done a complete 360.

President Barack Obama gathered at the White House with the health care industry on May 11th announcing a commitment to cut 2 trillion in costs in 10 years. A week after, Obama appeared with the major car companies, announcing an increase of fuel economy standards of passenger cars to 39 mpg by 2016. Days later, a climate change bill passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill was supported by energy companies including Duke Energy and Excelon. Well, this is a change. Contrary to what Obama would have us believe, the change is smaller in reality than it’s written on paper.

For some strange reason, the Republicans have decided to stop making sense. Their arguments over health care, fuel efficient cars, and global warming amongst other issues are so blatantly irrational, they’ve reduced their party to an irrelevance. Even worse, they’re attempting to legislate as though the American people have given them control of the entire government. Not surprisingly, big business bolted. Their once reliable and seemingly rational ally lost all sense of reality. Facing the prospect of universal health care, strong fuel economy mandates, and a tough cap on greenhouse gas emissions, they crossed the isle.

This involved making compromises and meeting Democratic lawmakers halfway on major issues. In their eyes, corporations would rather bite the bullet than swallow the grenade. Democrats would prefer easily won battles over hard fought wars. Why expend your political capital on a single issue you might lose on when you can make it appear to the public you’ve won big while holding hands with longtime opponents?

The new 39 mpg fuel economy standards by 2016 may appear bold. Compare them to the rest of the world. China’s average cars had to meet a standard of 35.8 mpg in 2008, nevermind passenger! In Japan and the EU, the standards are even greater right now. Somehow, some way, our automakers will find the “technological innovation” to meet the standards in 2016 that foreign companies are meeting right now. In order to get off foreign oil, we must do better.

Consider the climate change bill. The most effective way to manage a cap and trade bill is to auction off 100% of the pollution permits, as President Obama originally called for. This forces the polluting industries to pay, and then the revenues can be returned to the American people to offset higher energy costs. On the condition that companies such as Excelon and Duke Energy support the bill, the vast majority of the permits are being given away for free to the polluters. Democratic lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Committee such as Rick Boucher of Virginia have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the coal industry. Not surprisingly, he has led the charge on weakening the bill, and will continue to do so in a way that threatens to render it ineffective at preventing catastrophic climate change.

Since the EPA has declared carbon dioxide is a health hazard, the executive branch has the authority to regulate the pollutant if it so chooses. If Obama truly wanted a strong climate bill, he could use this possibility to bully lawmakers and big business into supporting a stronger bill that places American interests above the coal interests. The alternative to a weak climate bill could be the EPA taking matters into its own hands. Obama has been very hands off, fine with allowing the coal industry to write the bill.

The battle over health care will come soon in Congress, and progressive advocates will face their own hardships in achieving meaningful legislation. How $2 trillion dollars in savings would be achieved was left to the imagination of the public. As the AP noted “the specifics, industry officials said, would come later.” When put into context, the specifics of the fuel economy standards and the climate bill are far from welcome.

The small steps President Obama is taking on these issues are far preferable to the backwards thinking of the previous administration. What’s not right is painting the picture to the American public that Washington is taking major steps to confront global warming, energy independence, and health care. This is simply a political game being used to keep the approval ratings steady. It’s working, and Obama along with the Democratic party will likely be reelected in 2010 and 2012. Much to Rush Limbaugh’s dismay, Obama will succeed. But given the monumental challenges we face, and the half-hearted measures being used to confront them, will we?

climate change President Barack Obama

Shame on the EPA

Cross posted from here

Obama’s EPA has done some good things already, but there is one really big black mark on their record which is extremely disappointed. With the commotion of the climate bill moving through Congress, I hadn’t had a chance to comment on the EPA’s ruling that 42 of the 48 Mountaintop Removal mining permits were “environmentally responsible””. I’ve documented plenty of reasons why coal use needs to be phased out Continue reading

coal Environmental Protection Agency mountaintop removal

Special Delivery to Congressman Sarbanes

Over the past several weeks CCAN activists have been campaigning hard to push their Congressman, John Sarbanes, to strengthen the American Clean Energy and Security Act during the bill’s markup this week. In a truly inspiring show of good old grassroots gumption these super-activists managed to generate well over 100 emails, phone calls, faxes and hand written messages to the Congressman in just over a week. In message after message, constituents called on the Congressman to wrest back control of the bill from special interest hijackers by advocating on behalf of a 100% auction of pollution permits, strictly limited and regulated carbon offsets, and strong renewable energy and energy efficiency standards.

The grassroots lobbying flurry culminated on Wednesday when CCAN rock-star activist Ruth Alice White and I traveled to Capitol Hill to personally hand Sarbanes a stack of 70 constituent letters. Ruth Alice caught up with the Congressman on his way out of a committee markup session, and handed him the letters all tied up with a snappy green ribbon.

Before heading off, the Congressman posed for a picture with Ruth Alice, and you can tell from the grin on his face that he couldn’t have been more thrilled to receive this unique gift from his constituents!

It’s important to note exactly what we accomplished with this constituent pressure. No, we didn’t get a stronger bill. The passage of a watered down bill was unfortunately a forgone conclusion, rendered by the powers that be. But we established a very important dialogue between the Congressman and his constituents on climate change. We clearly demonstrated that his constituency is engaged, informed, and deeply concerned about climate and clean energy policy and thereby raised the bar for his leadership. Over the past several, we turned up the volume and the Congressman is tuning in, as suggested by his his remarks on the first day of markup. He’s listening folks, so let’s make sure he continues to hear our voices. Go to http://local.1sky.org to sign up for our 3rd District Climate Action Network!