June 05, 2006

More Energy Industry Propaganda

This is a long post, so most of it will be below the jump. The Chronicle printed commentary under the title, "Al Gore's Telling Whoppers Again", by Robert L. Bradley, Jr., the president of a 501c called "Institute for Energy Research". At least the Chronicle reported his relationship with the 501c. For those who have access to Chronicle online, the commentary is here.

With the industry produced cowchips flying at us so fast, global warming is a challenge to the 20 second speech. This is something to think about for the next HCDP Issues Forum.


Al Gore will be in Houston this week promoting his movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth. Predictably, his message is dire. The planet must be saved — and quickly — from manmade carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by coal, petroleum and natural gas usage. Self-interested consumer choices are the culprit, and a government-directed reshaping of energy production and consumption is necessary. The Gore-led campaign is clear: A grass-roots movement must arise to force politicians to give us our bitter medicine — smaller cars, more expensive appliances and higher gasoline prices and electricity rates.

Public policy is the culprit. Several generations of investments in highway infrastructure imply that our patterns of energy consumption are consequences of public policy decisions. If the federal government bought pizza and gave it away, would pizza consumption be consumer choice? We need to change our policy on energy.

Wait! Before we jump to government energy-planning, let's look at the track record of the sky-is-falling crowd. Didn't we hear in the 1960s that the "population bomb" would cause food riots in American cities and mass starvation globally? Didn't the Club of Rome in the 1970s predict the end of mineral resources by now? Wasn't global cooling the scare before global warming? Isn't it suspicious that the problem is always individual behavior, and the solution is always government action?

All of these are red herrings.

There should be great hesitation before swallowing the Chicken Little du jour. The good news is that the bad news about the climate is exaggerated. Leading climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Houston's own Dr. Neil Frank, a hurricane expert, as well as popular writers such as Michael Crichton, John Stossel and George Will are not careless, deceivers or plain bad folks. They are reporting the flaws in the analysis behind climate alarmism.

Bradley never gives us an example of "the bad news about the climate". He leaves it to the reader to conclude that any bad news about the climate must be exaggerated. We don't even know if his experts, Richard Lindzen and Neil Frank, are denying global warming. He only says they are against climate alarmism, whatever that is.

What are some of the inconvenient truths that An Inconvenient Truth fails to consider? First, CO2 is not a pollutant but a building block of life, benefiting plant life and agriculture. The one-third increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, from pre-industrial levels, has produced a "greening" of planet Earth, and this will continue for decades to come. Second, the surface warming that many scientists associate with manmade greenhouse gas emissions shows a relatively benign distribution. Minimum (night, winter) temperatures have been increasing twice as much as maximum (daytime, summer) temperatures. Higher night-time temperatures and longer growing seasons reinforce the carbon-fertilization effect, aiding plant growth and agricultural productivity.

Fats are "building blocks of life". Should I tell my doctor I don't need to be concerned about my cholesterol levels? CO2 is a normal part of the Earth's atmosphere, trapping heat for the climate. Heat is good. Too much heat is bad: it melts the ice caps. Therefore, too much CO2 is bad since global temperatures vary with CO2 levels.

Third, the actual rate of global warming to date is well below the high levels predicted by some climate models. As climate scientists know, it is feedback effects that turn a low level of predicted warming into a potentially problematic one; yet it is the nature and impact of such feedbacks that are most in dispute. Real-world climate is far too complex to be modeled. Local weather predictions several days out are notoriously suspect; models predicting the global climate decades and even a century out are will-o'-the-wisps.

Where has anyone made the claim that all of the global climate models are correct? The theory of global warming say that high levels of CO2 will accelerate the greenhouse effect, which in turn, will lead to increasing global temperatures. He does not mention the climate models that are correct.

At a minimum, Al Gore should add some caveats to his stage show. Citizens and policy-makers should beware those who habitually blame free markets for problems and call on government planning to solve them. Many climate economists argue that global warming — whether man-made or natural — has significant economic benefits, not only costs. The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy, an anthology by 26 specialists, pointed out that the United States would be a net beneficiary from most warming scenarios in the 21st century. It concluded: "Agronomic studies suggest that carbon fertilization is likely to offset some if not all of the damages from warming."

One climate model predicts the melting Arctic ice caps will interupt the Gulf Stream, thus changing a major factor in predicting weather for Eastern North America and Western Europe. Under one scenario, New England and Eastern Canada will get warmer, while Western Europe will get colder. That's a good thing for people living in Nova Scotia, but that does not say what's good for the rest of the planet.

Al Gore has been a master of exaggeration ever since then-Sen. Gore blamed the heat and drought of the summer of 1988 on manmade global warming.

Bradley concludes that Gore is a "master of exaggeration" without citing one case of exaggeration.

Be prepared for more of these prevarications in the fall.

Posted by Jon Boyd at 05:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 07, 2006

In Defense of Life, Land and Culture

Indigineous Resistance to Oil Extraction in the Amazon

Achuar.jpg

Hear from Leaders from the Rainforests of Peru and Ecuador:

Domingo Ankuash (Shuar from Ecuador),
Andres Sandi (Achuar from Peru), and
Jose Gualinga (Kichwa from Sarayaku)

Join them in Challenging Oil Drilling Plans by ConocoPhillips

Date: Monday, May 8
Time: 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Location: The Artery, 5401 Jackson @ Prospect
(entrance on Prospect)

Hear Amazonian leaders speak about their 10 year resistance to oil extraction on their ancestral territories, and

See the World Premiere of "Conoco at the Crossroads," a film by Amazon Watch.

$5 donation requested at the door but no one will be turned away for lack of funds.

ConocoPhillips Annual Shareholder Meeting

Date: Wednesday, May 10
Time: 9:00 am
Location: Omni Houston Hotel Westside, 13210 Katy Freeway

The Shuar, Achuar, and Kichwa number close to 100,000 people and inhabit some of Ecuador and Peru’s last vestiges of unprotected, pristine rainforest, having fought for decades to keep oil, mining, and logging out of their territory. However, Houston-based Burlington Resources holds interests in three oil concessions—known as block 23 and 24 in Ecuador, and lot 104 in Peru—which total roughly 2 million acres and fall entirely on Shuar, Achuar. and Kichwa traditional homelands. Faced with the unwavering opposition of the indigenous groups since 2000, Burlington employed one of the Amazon’s most aggressive divide and conquer campaigns in hopes of manufacturing consent and moving forward with the project. The presence and pressure of the company has created a dangerous atmosphere of conflict and tension. On March 31, 2006, ConocoPhillips, also based in Houston, completed its acquisition of Burlington, making it the third largest U.S. oil and gas company. ConocoPhillips will celebrate a year of record profits and its new purchase at its annual shareholder meeting in Houston, Wednesday May 10.

Please come HEAR the stories of Shuar, Achuar, and Kichwa efforts to defend their lives, land and culture in the face of oil extraction.

JOIN them in exposing the controversy and calling on ConocoPhillips to respect their rights and abandon the project.

More information on the Sarayacu community
More information on OXY's drilling on Achuar's land in Peru
More information on The Artery
More information on the Shuar and Achuar from the Pachamama Alliance

ConocoPhillips PAC Summary

ConocoPhillips spent $5,098,084 lobbying the Congress and the Executive branches in 2005

Texas Ethics Commission
Federal Election Commission

Posted by Aimee Mobley Turney at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 24, 2006

Appalachian Treasures

In the Appalachian mountains of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia & Tennesee, there is a ticking time-bomb that threatens a rural population with enormous tragedy as a result of mountaintop removal coal mining. 

Appalachian Treasures is a free multi-media presentation on mountaintop removal and its critical social & environmental justice impacts, including the opportunity to meet and talk with 2 Appalachian coalfield residents, Mary Miller and Pauline Canterberry, who will speak about daily life in the shadow of MTR mines.   The presentation will be featured at free open-to-the-public venues in the Houston area:

Spring Branch/Memorial: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:00 PM, Unitarian Fellowship of Houston, 1504 Wirt Road, contact Sarah at ufhsjca@sbcglobal.net or 281-813-0660 if you have any questions.

Inside 610 Loop: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:30 PM, Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, 2515 Waugh Drive (intersection of Missouri and Waugh).  Contact Bridget at blj2@pdq.net or 713-417-2056 if you have any questions.

Although Appalachia may seem far from Texas, we are all deeply tied to the region. Not only does much of the electricity powering our homes and businesses comes from Appalachian coal, but the region’s history, music, and famed self-reliance remain a great influence in American culture.

As energy issues become increasingly pressing in America, it is crucial to realize how our neighbors in Appalachia suffer to supply the energy needs of the rest of the nation and to seek alternatives that do not destroy communities and cultures. 

In mountaintop removal mining, big coal companies literally blast apart the beautiful Appalachian mountains, removing up to 1000 feet of elevation to reach seams of coal. The dirt and rock that used to be the mountain are dumped into adjacent valleys, burying Appalachia’s clear mountain streams. 

Mountaintop removal leaves behind vast barren wastelands too remote to be viable for development and too disturbing in appearance to support a tourism economy like those flourishing in the non-coal regions of Appalachia.  To date, mountaintop removal mining has flattened at least a million acres across the Appalachian coalfields.  ‘Valley fills’, the term for the mining waste dumped into adjacent valleys, have already buried 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams and more are buried every day.

The Appalachian Treasures project is focused on ending this particular form of coal mining.  Over the course of years working with Appalachian coalfield residents, we realized that mountaintop removal will only continue if the American people remain unaware that such an unjust, destructive, and short-sighted enterprise is happening on our soil.  Most coalfield communities are rural and isolated.  In states where big coal companies hold overwhelming political power, the opposition of coalfield citizens alone is not enough to stop mountain top removal.

The Appalachian Treasures outreach tours are focused on talking with people in districts of federal Congressional Representatives in key positions to help pass the Clean Water Protection Act (HR 2719).  The CWPA is a bill in Congress that will outlaw filling streams with the rock & dirt from these enormous coal mines & sharply curtail mountain top removal mining.

Thanks to Sarah Berel-Harrop for submitting this information

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

August 16, 2005

This will be BIG News fifty years from now

WARMING HITS TIPPING POINT says the Guardian last Thursday.

A vast portion of Siberia, "an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age":

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

Because of the feedback effect and the resulting release of methane gases, estimates of temperature rises over the next century will probably be revised upward as much as 25% just based on this single finding.

"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."

Various climate scientists have been warning that something like this was around the corner. But the oil-drunk Busheviks, soaked in flatulent denial, are so far behind on the climate crisis that the public is also several steps from understanding the nature and dimension of the problem, and especially what must be done.

The argument about how aggressively to curb greenhouse gases that has absorbed everyone now becomes an argument primarily about responsibility to the somewhat distant future. Passing a tipping point in Siberia means that nothing anyone does now, not even a 95% reduction in carbon dioxide, is going to stop the melting.

The things that are going to have to be done first to deal with the inevitable aren't even being discussed, because the administration and its supporters deny it is happening.

Another danger is the public failing to understand that cutting emissions won't benefit them (except in terms of healthier air and water, of course) because it probably won't affect the climate for a very long time, and so they would simply refuse to switch to clean, renewable and sustainable energy -- thus condemning the future to even greater horrors, such as an end to the earth's ability to sustain many of the life forms that characterize the planet.

Or, as some people say, the earth as we have known it since the dinosaurs.

This news sheds a different light on the complaining about the price of gasoline, doesn't it?

Posted by Guest Blogger PDiddie at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

HCDP Adopts Environmental Resolutions for Cleaner Air and Water

The Environmental Initiative of the Houston Region Democrats submitted the following resolutions. The Harris County Democratic Party adopted it on June 30, 2005. The "Environmental Initiative" meets monthly:

Call 713-683-0638 for notice of the next meeting.

RESOLUTION REGARDING STANDARDS FOR SAFER AIR TO BREATHE

WHEREAS Harris County, Texas is the third largest populated county in the United States with about 2 million voters and 3 million residents;

  • Harris County has 22% of the roll call in seven (7) of the 31 Senate Districts in Texas; the counties in these seven districts include Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, Montgomery, and Orange. These counties politically define the "Houston Region".
  • The City of Houston, Harris County, Texas is the 4th largest populated city in the United States; and is to home of the oil and gas industry, NASA and the largest medical complex in the world;
  • Vehicles (44%) and industry (55%) are the leading sources of air pollution and toxic emissions in the Houston Region;
  • General property tax revenue is the primary source of funds for public institutions and agencies, such as city and county pollution control and the regional offices of the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality, Texas Department of Health, and Department of Transportation;
  • Harris County and the Houston Region are consistently out of compliance with Ambient Air Quality Standards for major criteria air pollutants. These pollutants are acknowledged by both the scientific community and the city, county, and state Departments of Health and Texas Commission of Environmental Quality as exacerbating both respiratory and cardiovascular related disease in the human population.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Harris County Democratic Party supports:

  • Appropriate science-based air quality standards for the Houston Region that will result in safer indoor and outdoor air for all humans to breathe.
  • Environmental assessments that include protection for human health based on appropriate health and life science peer reviewed studies.
  • An environmental economic formula that includes an environmental assessment that will protect both public revenues and public health for publicly funded transportation and development projects.


RESOLUTION REGARDING REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

WHEREAS Harris County, Texas is the third largest populated county in the

United States with about 2 million voters and 3 million residents;

  • Harris County has 22% of the roll call in seven (7) of the 31 Senate Districts in Texas; the counties in these districts include Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, Montgomery, and Orange. These counties politically define the 'Houston Region';
  • The City of Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States; it is the home to the petrochemical industry, NASA, more than 16 institutions of higher learning and the largest medical complex in the world;
  • The surface and near-surface groundwater in the Houston Region are polluted with urban and industrial chemicals and waste;
  • The Houston Region is subject to natural geological ground subsidence and land subsidence increases with groundwater production;
  • Special Subsidence Districts have been created to manage groundwater production within Harris, Galveston and Fort Bend counties;
  • Regional water and transportation plans have been created for Harris and adjacent counties within the Houston Region.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Harris County Democratic Party supports:

  • Good management of the Region H Water Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan to increase the quality of all human life and reuse and recycle limited water resources.
  • Appropriate and high human life and health science-based standards for regulating both surface and underground drinking water supplies.
  • Green-space for parks, recreation, floodwater management, and wetlands protection within the region.
  • An environmental economic formula for water and transportation projects funded with public revenue, that includes an environmental assessment to protect public health as well as public funds.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 03:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

You're in the "Michael Jackson-Free Zone"

Thus it will ever be (hopefully). I'll do my part if you'll do yours.

Speaking of getting things done, last night I multi-tasked my blogging assignments; listening to Chris Bell on his conference call with Blogville, Texas and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in person locally.

I had dialed in, we had called the roll, and Tim McCann -- Bell's nearly-a-campaign operations manager -- was discussing the numbers on the House Parties held Sunday. I was proceeding to my seat in the Hobby Center just a few minutes before the program's opening.

And my phone dropped the call. And couldn't get up. Unless I went outside.

So your best reports will be found here and here.

I'm afraid I can't even give a good account of RFK Jr.'s discussion of our environmental woes, and they are woeful. He dispenses so much information that I simply couldn't keep up with it all. I noticed a woman a row in front of me taking shorthand, and she quit a few minutes after I did.

Here are a few snips of what I could assimilate:

Consider the devastation of Appalachia by the coal mining companies, whose product spins our country's electricity generators, which results in emissions loading up our breathable air with particulate that's choking our children (the incidence of juvenile asthma is skyrocketing) and causing our planet to warm up like an asphalt parking lot in Houston in June. With July and August on the way.

Consider the pollution of our rivers and lakes, where the fish we catch and eat has so much mercury now that it is dangerous -- approaching deadly -- to continue doing so. Kennedy's own recently-tested blood mercury levels are twice the recommended safe level, and his doctor claims that if he were a pregnant female, the child he would bear would have -- not might, would -- have significant cognitive impairment.

There was so much more -- the Bush administration's hand in all this, with all of the various lobbyists and corporate cronies now writing the laws meant to safeguard our environment for your children in the future. To use only the most recent example, it was revealed that a lackey for the American Petroleum Institute named Philip Cooney was editing the government's reports on global warming to eliminate the blame on the oil companies (and by extension the auto manufacturers for dragging their feet on hybrid vehicles and the Congress for failing to strengthen MPG standards, and on and on).

And then there's the complicity-by-indolence of our corporate media, to say nothing of the right-wing propaganda organs.

Kennedy noted that in his speeches before conservative groups, he gets exactly the same reaction as he does when he speaks at a liberal college campus; the one difference being that members of the mostly Republican audience invariably ask afterwards: "Why haven't we been hearing this before?" And his answer is "Because you're watching FOX News."

Go read this interview for more. And if that strikes a chord, read his book.

Posted by Guest Blogger PDiddie at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack

May 21, 2005

Energy vs. the Environment in Alaska (Rounds 2 and 3)

Now that it seems the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be open to drilling, the push to open new wildlife refuges to drilling has shifted to new regions in northern Alaska. These two new regions are Teshekpuk Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Get ready for these names to become as common and as well known as ANWR.

It's always dangerous to set a precedent because it just makes it that much easier to make the case that it's acceptable to drill in wildlife refuges the next time the issue comes up. Now before the ANWR issue is even totally settled (there's still one last vote to be held before it is final), oil and energy lobbyists as well as the Bush administration are pushing to open other untouched wildlife refuges in Alaska. As oil prices rise, drilling in these region becomes more economical.

Teshekpuk Lake National Wildlife Refuge includes Alaska's third-largest lake. Teshekpuk Lake is ringed by marshes that are home to migrating birds from as far as Mexico and Russia. Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge straddles the Arctic Circle that is a moist environment for moose, furry mammals, and waterfowl.

Teshekpuk, meaning "big enclosed coastal water," is Alaska's third-largest lake. It and its nearby wetlands draw huge flocks of birds each summer, there to shed their feathers and fatten up. Most notable are the Pacific black brant: Nearly 30 percent of the geese head to Teshekpuk for their annual molt.

"There is nowhere else in the circumpolar Arctic that attracts so many molting geese," says Stan Senner, executive director of Audubon Alaska.

Even President Reagan's pro-development Interior Secretary deemed Teshekpuk to sensitve to drill. While the Clinton administration chose to open the majority of the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve in 1998 to oil leasing, Teshekpuk remained out of bounds.

Alaska is the last frontier of America's westward expansion. Much of the inland areas that have been designated wildlife refuges still enclose pristine environments, where evolution still occurs unchanged by humans, and upon which many migratory species both in Alaska and others from many thousands of miles away depend for survival. I just wish as a society that we could agree to put these areas, as they are at the moment, above financial gain and corporate greed for the benefit of future generations. Even more importantly by preserving these areas, we provide some guarantee that the wildlife that depends on them will be around for future generations to experience as well.

Click here to read the entire article "Arctic oil search moves to new turf, new controversies" from the Christian Science Monitor.

Posted by at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 02, 2005

To Drill or Not to Drill in ANWR

I have transcribed the interview in which I participated for anyone who is interested, but missed the airing of City View this weekend. The topic of the interview was whether or not we should open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. I have included the basis of my claims at the end of the interview. Hopefully, this will spur some discussion about the pros and cons of drilling.

"City View: The Community as a Whole": Discussion of ANWR

Art Rascon: Good morning everyone. Welcome to City View this morning. Today our focus is both timely and extremely controversial. We're talking about oil and more specifically domestic production of it. This past week President George Bush called on Congress to pass his energy plan, which calls for more domestic production, like in Alaska, California, the Gulf of Mexico, other areas as well. Environmentalists don't like it. We'll explore this issue and talk about how all of this affects gas prices as well.

We start with the battle over Arctic oil, however. There is a bitter fight over this Alaskan crude. It is mana from heaven for Houston oil companies, but a curse to many native Alaskan Indians. I traveled to the Arctic region to take a closer look at the issue.

"The Battle over Arctic Oil"

Charlie Sweeney - Arctic Village Hunter: When you are hunting wolves or caribou, they are in the timber or in the bush.

Rascon: Charlie Sweeney is a native Gwichin Indian and has lived off this land all his life.

Sweeney: I wouldn't have it any other way. This is normal, normal living.

Rascon narrates: It may be a bitter cold morning but there is plenty of work to do.

[Sweeney slings gun across his shoulder.]

Sweeney: This winter we haven't seen that many caribou, 'cause uh... I think it's mainly because uh, all this noise, there's a lot more snow than usual here.

[Sweeney prepares snowmobiles, fastens gear.]

Rascon: Do you have everything?

Sweeney: Yup.

Rascon: Are you set to go?

Sweeney: Yup, I'm ready.

Rascon narrates: In these remote Indian villages, if you don't hunt, you don't eat.

[Sweeney starts the snowmobile.]

Rascon narrates: Charlie lives in the small, sleepy town of Arctic Village on the southern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better know as ANWR.

Timothy Sam - Arctic Village Elder: When you're here, it's just like my backyard, and they want to destroy it.

[Sam and Rascon walking through the village.]

Rascon narrates: Timothy Sam is one of the elders in Arctic Village. He's lived here for sixty years.

Rascon: Born and raised in this India area weren't you?

Sam: Yes.

Rascon narrates: If oil companies are allowed to explore and drill, Timothy believes life here will be changed forever.

Rascon: How important is this entire land to you?

Sam: Nature should give me everything I want, and uh, fur, timber... wild animals--you know, moose, coyote, caribou, fish--everything.

Rascon narrates: ANWR is made up of nearly 20 million acres. The proposal now is to open the 1.5 million acre coastal plain to oil exploration.

[Viewer sees a map of Alaska and ANWR that fades to a man carrying a bundle of pipe in front of an oil well.]

Sam: We will destroy this land once and for all.

[Sam and Rascon walking in village, transition to an aerial flyover of an oil rig.]

Rascon narrates: The fear among these Gwichin Indians is that exploring and drilling will disturb the wildlife, and more importantly the migration of the caribou.

[Viewer sees birds flying, caribou running across a wide plain as the camera pans across wooded hills of bare trees (winter time).]

Rascon: It has long been considered one of the world's great migrations. Tens of thousands of caribou migrating from the Yukon in northwestern Canada to Alaska above the Arctic Circle.

[Rascon is standing in the middle of a snow-covered village street.]

Rascon: And there was even a time that the caribou made their way right through the middle of these Indian villages.

[Snowmobiles shoot past camera, continuing down the street.]

Sweeney: Sixty-five to seventy percent of their diet is off the land, and if, if they go out, there is no more moose, there's no more caribou, there's going to be at a loss.

Rascon: Hunting for caribou or moose isn't easy in this rough country.

[Camera shows Rascon and Sweeney standing next to a frozen lake, then it focuses on Sweeney as he gestures towards the valley.]

Sweeney: Moose mainly stay in the, in the valley here... Uh, whereas the caribou like it on the hillsides.

[End of footage. Return to KTRK newsroom.]

Rascon: What is, what are the pros and cons of this issue? A controversial one indeed, and we're going to be discussin those in just a minute.

Joining us right is Charlie Richards. He is the past president of the Offshore Technology Conference. It is a massive conference here in Houston. Now, this is a big issue, domestic production, of course for the OTC as well.

Richards: Indeed. Good morning, Art. Uh, the production we're currently having now in the US comes primarily from the Gulf of Mexico, and while we are in shallow water and deeper water, the Offshore Technology Conference encompasses the technology necessary for us to produce oil in very difficult areas.

This brings us back to ANWR, and earlier when you were talking about wildife, Txas has been drilling oil in South Texas where there's an abundant wildlife. The environmentalists' concern with the fact that uh, drilling in ANWR will interrupt the wildlife, this is nonsense. It is not going to do that. There's a long history of very close regulated, and the oil companies are very environmentally responsible, and they're certainly not going to take uh, a chance of having any major disruption.

Rascon: And speaking of those issues as well, we're going to be watching a couple of reports that deal with what the oil companies are doing, and as well, we're going to be talking with an environmentalist.

Charlie, we're going to get back with you in just a minute to talk a little more about this issue. And when we come back, we'll take you back to Alaska for a closer look at how oil companies, as I said, are laying the groundwork for oil production in that region in the hopes that it will be someday approved. We'll be back.

[End of first segment.]

===============================
[Return from commercial break.]

Rascon: Welcome back to City View this morning. We're going to take you back to Alaska to the Arctic Village school house where young natives there are taught the caribou dance.

[Viewer sees a circle of children dancing, singing, and rythmically stomping the floor to the drum beat.]

Rascon narrates: Children here are taught at a very early age to respect the land and the caribou.

[Viewer sees caribou trotting over a green field, then a close up of a caribou's head.]

Rascon: Why are the caribou so important to you?

[Group of caribou crossing a rocky riverbed coming towards camera.]

Young boy: We use the whole body for our stuff.

Rascon: Tell me what the caribou is used for.

Young boy: Um, canvas boots, our traditional clothes, clothes, and all this.

[Viewer again see villagers dancing in circles in the schoolhouse.]

Rascon narrates: They have also been taught something else.

[Camera shows a classroom of kids.]

Rascon: If the oil companies come and drill in ANWR and explore in that area, what happens to the caribou?

Girl: Dies.

Boy: They go into Canada, and they probably won't even come over to Alaska any more.

Rascon narrates: But is it true or propaganda? It's all lies say oil company executives.

[Rascon is standing with Sullivan on vehicle tracks in snow near an oil rig.]

Bill Sullivan - Vice-President, Anadarko Petroleum: You understand, we can develop, we can produce oil fields, even during the summer. Uh, the caribou frankly seem to ignore all that activity.

Rascon narrates: Bill Sullivan is Vice-President of Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum.

[Camera shows a view of village buildings, then the inside of a plane, and then the plane taking off down an ice runway.]

Rascon narrates: We caught up with him in northern Alaska, as he made his way to the village of Kratowic, sizing up oil exploration possibilities.

[Camera shows an aerial panorama of a city and grid of streets covered in snow.]

Sullivan: It can be potentially significant to Anadarko from a future growth standpoint.

[Viewer sees a map of Alaska and ANWR showing the location of Kratowic.]

Rascon narrates: Kratowic is a tiny village on the most northern tip of ANWR and the closest community to where oil companies most desperately want to drill.

[Van approaches along a snow road lined with telephone polls and houses in the background.]

Sullivan: We're optimistic. In our business, you have to be optimistic, uh. We're hoping for the best. We would expect totake an aggressive approach to exploration and uh, and keep our fingers crossed that we'll have some great results.

[Viewer sees Rascon and Sullivan disembarking from plane and then driving by village houses.]

Rascon narrates: And, like those in Arctic Village, many here live off the land.

[Viewer sees caribou running through a rocky river in the summer.]

Penton Rexford - President, Native Corporation: We're stewards of the land, we wouldn't want to see the caribous driven away, the tundra damaged.

[Rexford is standing with Rascon in a snow field.]

Rascon narrates: Penton Rexford is an Eskimo elder in Kratowic.

[See house in drifts of snow.]

Rascon narrates: There is a big difference in attitude towards drilling here.

[See two kids getting onto school bus.]

Rascon narrates: These natives actually like the oil companies.

Rexford: We'll watch it. We'll be the stewards, we'll monitor, and if they're going to make mistakes, we'll let them know.

[Viewer sees an oil rig in the gloom of winter, then a closeup of machinery on the rig.]

Rascon narrates: Years ago, after oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay, the native Eskimos formed corporations with several villages along the northslope to work closely with oil companies.

[Viewer sees caribou with their thick winter coats, then the OAREII Community Center as the mayor and Rascon descend the stairs.]

Mans Insala - Mayor of Kratowic: We're hoping there will be very little impact, if it's done correctly.

Rascon narrates: Mans Insala is the mayor of Kratowic.

Rascon: Are you concerned about the environmental impact at all?

[Viewer sees a herd of caribou trotting over a grassy field, then a close up of caribou grazing.

Insala: Well, we're environmentalists too, and of course we are. We don't want to see any harm come to the caribou or the land, and, uh, we think that if it's done right, it can be done uh, without any harm coming to either one.

[View of Insala and Rascon standing in front of the community center.]

Rascon narrates: There is a financial benefit as well.

[Viewer sees a large tractor raising an insulated roofing section onto a new house, then a series of views showing builders working on houses.]

Rascon narrates: Native villages belonging to the corporations profit from oil revenues. There are new schools, new homes, nice community centers.

[Snowmobile drives past the homes.]

Rascon narrates: Quite a contrast from the rundown villages of the Gwichin Indians.

[See a man chopping wood with an ax.]

Rascon narrates: Senior Elder Gideon James of Arctic Village is not happy about it.

[Viewer sees a panoramic of the village with James chopping wood in the middle ground at dusk.]

James: In the last thirty years that uh, that uh, they've been pumping oil from the northslope uh, we haven't seen the essential services they were supposed to provide like they did our school.

Rascon narrates: Although the Gwichins refused to join the corporations, Gideon believes they are still entitled to at least some of the oil profits.

Rascon: But you want better schools.

James: Ya.

Rascon narrates: Better community centers.

James: Yes.

Rascon narrates: You want those?

James: Yes.

Rascon narrates: If the oil companies came in and said, "Ok," we'll give you a better school...

James: No! No! I don't think, I don't think that's my point. You know, they already did thirty years of uh, you know, of that kind of uh, production up there. We haven't seen anything, and now they're going to come up and send some of that to me. I'm not stupid you know?

[End of footage. Return to KTRK newsroom.]

Rascon: Lots of views here, for and against, and in Houston this week, 50,000 people belonging to various oil companies are in town to take part in the OTC.

What's the significance of this four-day conference really Charlie?

Richards: Art, I tell you, this is the thirty-fifth year, thirty-six years the OTC has been in Houston. The, the number of people that attend this week will probably be in excess of 50,000 people.

The financial gains that just the City of Houston will realize, several millions of dollars. We have close to 10,000 foreign visitors coming in. And the conference itself is not only just a technical conference. There is also an exhibit that will exhibit the various new products and techniques that are being currently used in the oil patch.

Rascon: You know with all the foreigners coming in as well, is ther some debate about the, the, the, the dependency that America has on foreign oil?

Richards: Yes.

Rascon: Is there too much dependency there?

Richards: Well this is true and you'll find uh, companies uh, are exhibitors there from like Nigeria, uh Venezuela, um major oil companies--Shell, Exxon. As a matter of fact, you'll see a couple of announcements made uh, maybe I'm jumping the gun a little bit, but Exxon will be making an announcement that's rather unique, and uh... The conference is such a unique conference, uh that bringing in the foreign visitors, which gives us a, an opportunity to show them how the US has been developing their oil fields. Saudi Arabia, uh Qatar, uh a number, um... You'll find that comp... of the French companies will be in attend... the Norwegians...

Rascon: And all of those companies with American companies debating as well over the dependency American oil, foreign oil, and all of that.

We're going to get into some of that in just a minute Charlie because that is extremely important, especially when we're talking about more domestic production.

When we come back, more from Alaska. There is precious wildlife there, so what are oil companies promising to do to protect it. The answer in a moment. We'll be back.

[End of segment two.]

===============================
[Return from commercial break.]

Rascon: Welcome back to City View this morning. There is precious wildlife in Alaska. That's not disputed, but during the dead of winter there is really nothing but ice, and that's when oil companies get to work.

[Near Prudhoe Bay, Northern Alaska.]

Rascon narrates: There is an ominous, eery feeling when you're caught in the middle of this.

[View of Rascon trudging through snow towards the camera in a blizzard.]

Rascon narrates: The wind cuts right through you. But it is these awful conditions that allow oil companies to do their work.

[An 18-wheeler drives slowly over ice road past the camera.]

Rascon narrates: They are not allowed to explore for oil or travel unless the ground is frozen and covered with snow.

[Rascon is standing in a blizzard surrounded by whiteness.]

Rascon: These Arctic winters can be brutal, the wind chill factor alone, even now, is nearly fifty degrees below zero.

[Rascon walks towards camera along the ice road.]

Rascon: The cold temperatures however, allow the oil companies to build ice roads. These ice roads are some three to five feet thick. In the summertime they are completely gone.

[Viewer sees an aerial view of green-brown mountains in the summer, then a verdant valley with mountains beyond, a bird walking in the grass, and a close up of bright pink flowers.]

Rascon narrates: This is what the coastal plain looks like in the beauty of summer. Like clockwork every year, the porcupine caribou heard settles on the tundra. It is the heard's camping grounds, grounds that oil companies promise not to harm.

[Caribou trot across a green field, then a herd runs through a river, and downslope away from the camera.]

Sullivan: There's a couple of elements we really have to protect.

[Viewer sees a valley stream bordered by a melting ice ledge with blue mountains rising in the background in low light with voluminous clouds above.]

Sullivan: One is the land itself, and the delicate tundra here. And then there's the wildlife in the area, particularly the caribou is what the Gwichin are concerned about.

[A caribou herd moves over a hill towards the camera, then the viewer sees a large herd grazing in a field. The camera focuses on some small white flowers, then zooms in on a small auburn bird sunning itself on a branch.]

Rascon: This, this is all frozen, frozen tundra...

[The viewer can see a bright blue helicopter in the background. Sullivan and Rascon walk towards the camera.]

Sullivan: Underneath is frozen tundra, it's frozen solid. Then of course we get snow cover on top of that.

Rascon narrates: Bill Sullivan makes his money off finding oil, and is determined to help open ANWR.

Sullivan: It's a significant amount of oil, and be a very important source of oil for the United States.

[Viewer sees an aerial panorama of snow tracks created by heavy seismic equipment that just passed.]

Rascon narrates: Not to mention the profits it would bring many Houston-based oil companies.

[Viewer sees a close up of the large, heavy seismic equipment rolling over the snow, tamping the ground with disks to try and detect what lies beneath.]

Rascon narrates: If ANWR was to open, companies would first bring in heavy equipment, like this to take what would be the equivalent of an MRI of the Earth.

[Viewer sees the seismic machines tamping the ground.]

Sullivan: If we have a discovery, and if we actually would develop an oil field um, then we would do it in a way that would minimize the surface impact.

Rascon narrates: In fact new technology allows oil companies to drill fairly large areas with one small footprint.

[Aerial view of machinery leaving tracks in snow below. A man shows a map of an oil rig footprint from which many drills radiate outwards.]

Mike Lydon - Phillips Petroleum: Right now, you can look at this map and uh. We're all of our wells from this pad right here.

Rascon narrates: Mike Lydon helps run the Phillips and Anadarko oil wells along the northslope.

Lydon: We have such a small footprint here, uh compared to uh, other areas because, uh because of the directional drilling we, we can reach out and go directionally from just one small location.

[Viewer sees a plane flying away. In the foreground is a street sign that says, "Alpine."]

Rascon narrates: The footprint left in ANWR would be similar to those left in the most recent oil discoveries outside of the refuge.

[An Aerial panorama of an oil rig surrounded by snow, then the viewer sees a rig in summer bordered by out-buildings.]

[End of footage. Return to KTRK newsroom.]

Rascon: It is a disturbing issue for some, but many people want to continue of course to move that forward push to exploration.

Joining me now we have Rick Slemaker with Energy Magazine. We discussed a lot about uh, this issue, and others as well. We're going to get to your comments.

And as well, Marc Olivier, Environmental Specialist from the Harris County Democratic Party. Marc, let me start with you.

What's the problem with drilling in ANWR to increase domestic production?

Olivier: Well the main problem is that the increase in domestic production is only going to be temporary. Current preductions vary from providing enough oil from six months to not more than two years. The fact is that fifty-six percent of the nation's, our nation's oil comes from foreign sources. Even if we do get the amount of oil that, that oil companies are saying is retrievable, it's only going to be temporary, but at least fifty percernt because tension in the ground holds some oil, so whatever number they are quoting, you can immediately cut it in half 'cause not all the oil can be extracted, and no technology has solved that yet.

Rascon:And so if we have this major dependency on foreign oil. What is the answer? More domestic production Rick?

Slemaker: Absolutely, that's one of the answers, but we have to understand ANWR is, is the result of a negotiation. The pro-enviro... the environmental people like Marc, who are good people, and the oil industry as well are good people. So they took this twenty million acreas and they messaged it down to one-point-nine million, but the footprint is only two-thousand acres, so an example would be if you took a dime and ropped it on the floor of the Reliant Stadium, football stadium, and that's the amount of space we're talking about in the footprint because we're talking about millions of acres.

To answer Marc's question we need more production, we need it obviouslt from everywhere, but we're a sharing industry and we have t share this like... uh, of all us. So we have to share, we have to have more, uh renewable fuels, which I'm sure arc is for and we are, the industry's for, we're at hydrogen in the future, but until those are developed, we have to keep the, the our responses to what's necessary and what's needed. One of the problwme we have, a big problem is, is Venezuela. We get a huge amount from there, we have a socialist government. A guy that's uh, another Juan Peron or something, and he's hurting us from, that is having oil, and it's preventing us from having this oil and that's why this spike is happening.

Rascon: Alright, so let's talk about the uh, dependency here on foreign oil. What is the answer? You do agree that we need more domestic production?

Olivier: Yes, we do, and there's no way around that. Um, but the fact is that Democrats, especially in Congress have been overrun by Tom DeLay and Joe Barton of Texas who have not allowd them to put their amendments into the bill calling for greater benefits for those to buy hybrids. Right now you get a $2,000 tax break, but next year in 2006 that tax break will drop to $500, so that is a huge drop in incentive for people to buy hybrid vehicles rather than to continue buying Excursions and Hummers that only get eight miles an hour [I meant to say 'gallon'.]

Rascon: So your answer to this, the Democratic Party's, is alternative fuels?

Olivier: Yes.

Rascon: Ok, we're going to discuss this more in just a minute but first, in a moment, some final thoughts about the battle over Arctic oil. And we'll take you back as well to Northern Alaska for a look at the native Indians celebrating the discovery of oil there.

[End of segment three.]

===============================
[Return from commercial break.]

Rascon: Welcome back to City View this morning. Now, despite the controversy searching for oil in Alaska, most residents there in the region support oil companies. The oil companies provide jobs and millions in revenue.

[Nuiqsit, Alaska. Viewer sees people chanting and hitting tambourines.]

Rascon narrates: But the strongest supporters in this fight may well be those that live in the native villages along the northslope.

[Villagers dancing to the beat of drums in the school gym.]

Rascon narrates: A traditional dance of gratitude for oil tells their story.

[Gail Norton, Secretary of Interior is shaking hands at a reception. The camera then focuses on her sitting in the front row watching the dance with the audience behind her.]

Rascon narrates: Villagers recently greeted the Secretary of Interior and a delegation of senators from Washington with a clear unified voice.]

Man addressing adudience: We do support opening less than ten percent of ANWR as our target, and we do support it wholeheartedly. Thank you very much for visiting the northslope corridor. We want to see you again. Thank you.

[Audience claps, and Gail Norton is beaming. The camera then shows a sunrise and a dog sled passes by.]

Rascon narrates: Meantime, far from the politics of this debate...

[Brooks Range of ANWR. Viewer sees a metallic pipeline shining in the sunlight cutting across the snow-covered ground.]

Rascon narrates: Ever since the pipeline went through. Um, things have really changed

[Sweeney and Rascon sitting around a fire.]

Rascon narrates: Sitting alone in the ANWR forest is Charlie Sweeney.

Sweeney: Then there's a lot of times you go out fifty miles, and you don't see nothing.

Rascon narrates: His long hunt has not been successful.

Sweeney: You come back and, you get ready and go out a different direction.

[Viewer sees a stand of spruce trees behind the fire.]

Rascon narrates: Charlie has a family to feed, aerials to make.

Rascon: That's a rough life.

Sweeney: A rough life.

Rascon: But one that you love?

Sweeney: Oh yes and uh, I wouldn't change it for nothing. No place like home.

[Camera pans across a tree-filled valley with low, blue mountains in the distance as the sun shines.]

[End of segment. Return to KTRK newsroom.]

Rascon: Oil companies want to turn less than ten percent of ANWR into an oil production field. Even with that Marc, the footprint is small, there may be thirty billion barrels of oil they say underground there. What is the harm in having that for ten or fifteen years, or twenty years?

Olivier: Well, the fact is that the ANWR areas of Northern Alaska, ninety-five percent of it has already been explored over the past thirty years. Five percent is actually the area that they are going to be looking in, so, I mean regardless of what they are going to find, there's such a small fraction of that area...

[The remaining part of City View was not recorded on my tape, signal was weak.]

However, I was saying how the amount of oil that potentially lies beneath ANWR is only a very small portion of America's total consumption and won't have a significant impact on oil supply. I mentioned the fact that I lived in England and that the British pay two pounds (as in the currency) per liter of gasoline, roughly equivalent to four dollars. A liter is about one-fourth of a gallon, so the British pay about twelve dollars per gallon of gas. I also mention that gas prices in Texas are relatively low compared to other parts of the nation, like Hawaii where they pay over three dollars a gallon. I ended by saying that what we pay is good compared to other parts of the world. In fact, Americans pay some of the cheapest gas prices in the world, and that what we pay for a gallon of gas will only go up in the future.

Art Rascon said something about "Are we supposed to find sollace in that?" and asks Rick Slemaker what he thinks the sollution is.

Rick countered my example of British gas prices with the fact that three-fifths of their gas price is tax.

Art Rascon ended the interview with the fact that even if oil companies are approved to drill in ANWR, it will be ten to fifteen years before that oil is available on the market.

Basis for my facts:

- ANWR oil supply will last from 6 months to not more than 2 years

The following is from the Belfer Center of Science and International Affairs at Harvard University:

Estimates of how much might be recoverable, if it is found there, have ranged from 3 billion barrels (by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1989), to 3.6 billion barrels (by the Department of Interior in 1991), to 4-12 billion barrels (by the USGS in 1998). This means, in round numbers (and assuming oil would be found there in one of the indicated quantities), that ANWR could provide between 6 months and 2 years' current US oil supply, or 1 to 4 years' current imports, or 4 to 16 years' current imports from the Persian Gulf. [Emphasis added]

However, it must be considered that these estimates do not include potential growth in future oil consumption/demand due to a growing population.

- 56% of America's oil comes from foreign sources
Depending on where you read it, the United States is importing from 56% (Source) to near 60% (Source) of its oil from foreign sources.

- Surface tension will hold up to 50% of oil in the ground. There is no technology avaiable to totally overcome this problem.

Read about it at US Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy site. Take particular note of the pie chart.

- Tom DeLay and Joe Barton overran Democratic amendments to the energy bill.

Here's a quote from the Washington Post:

Democrats also failed to add language that would have set national standards for the amount of renewable energy that needs to be produced. Some states have set such requirements, and supporters of the measure said it would encourage more production. Opponents argued that the amendment would increase costs and improperly exempt municipal power companies.

- One-time tax break for hybrid vehichles with drop from $2,000 in 2005 to $500 in 2006.

The following is from the US government's Fuel Economy site:

Vehicles in the table to the right may be eligible for a "clean fuel" deduction of $2,000 for those placed in service by the end of 2005 or $500 for those put in use during 2006.

- Excursion, Hummer get less than 8 mpg.

From SUV Info Link:

A Harper's Magazine writer took the massive Ford Excursion, the biggest of all SUVs for a test drive. During a drive around a city, the mighty Excursion was only getting 3.7 miles per gallon.

Hummers vary depending on model/engine (Source):

Turbos: 10.5 mpg worst at 83 mile per hour 14.2 mpg best driving easy under 55 miles per hour easy stop and go

Non turbo:
10.00 mpg is worst at 78 miles per hour
13.2 mpg best

Gas:
3.8 mpg worst at 78 miles per hour
6.8 mpg best easy in town driving

- 95% of Alaska's northslope has already been explored and drilled for 30 years, only 5% of that is ANWR.

I got information about the percentages from the Sierra Club.

- Gas prices in Britain roughly equivalent to $12 per gallon.
I misremembered the calculation. This is one of the problems you run into when you have less than an hour to prepare and get to an interview on time. KTRK did not call the Harris County Democratic Party until about 1pm and wanted someone at the studios by 2pm to start taping the interview. Nevertheless, $12 even for England is high. The highest I have found is in a town called Teeside, England. There it is $5.64 per gallon (Source). Yes, the British pay a much higher portion of gasoline in taxes, somewhere between 70% and 76% is tax (Source). However, the British have a very extensive public transportation system and developed rail network. The tax also goes towards maintaining roads as well as renewable energy projects. Additionally, while nearly $6 a gallon gasoline sounds absurd, it does encourage conservation and people use public transportation much more frequently. Additionally, cars are smaller in the UK. There are no (or only a very few) Excursions, Suburbans, pickup trucks, etc. This is partly because roads are narrower and parking spaces are limited as well as being too small for these types of vehicles.

- Gas prices in Hawaii over $3 per gallon.
I made a mistake here, but not a big one. The gas price in Hawaii is now about $2.67 per gallon on May 2. However, on April 8, gas cost nearly $2.78 per gallon, and in late October 2004, they were just short of $2.90. (Source).

I should have said California. For example, in San Mateo county, gas prices topped $3 at $3.19 per gallon on April 7 this year. (Source).

My claim that we are paying the some of the cheapest gas in the United States is correct according to the Energy Information Administration. Currently (as of May 2), the Texas average is 2.115 per gallon, while only Minnesota is lower at $2.023 per gallon. The average for Houston is $2.08, the lowest on the EIA's list for the entire country, excluding the Minnesotan state average.


Posted by at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack

April 22, 2005

One of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy

That is how the American Heritage Magazine (October 1993) referred to the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. Today marks the 35th Earth Day since its inception. Rather than write about the inadequacies of the current administration's environmental record and bad news about the environment, about which we all have all heard, I thought I would concentrate on the less well-known founder of Earth Day, former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson.

The roots of Earth Day began in 1962. Nelson was troubled by the state of our environment and the fact that it was a "non-issue" in politics. In November 1962 in order to bring attention to the environment, he met with President Kennedy. He managed to persuade the President to embark on a five-day, eleven-state national conservation tour in September 1963. While the trip did not prove to be entirely successful in placing the environment on the political agenda, it was the beginning. Nelson continued to promote discussion on environmental issues around the country, but he found the politicians were disinterested in the environment even though the people were concerned.

After President Kennedy's tour, I still hoped for some idea that would thrust the environment into the political mainstream. Six years would pass before the idea that became Earth Day occurred to me while on a conservation speaking tour out West in the summer of 1969. At the time, anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, called "teach-ins," had spread to college campuses all across the nation. Suddenly, the idea occurred to me - why not organize a huge grassroots protest over what was happening to our environment?

He believed by focusing on the public’s environmental concerns and introducing the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause, the result would be a demonstration that would force the environment onto the political agenda.

At a conference in Seattle in September 1969, I announced that in the spring of 1970 there would be a nationwide grassroots demonstration on behalf of the environment and invited everyone to participate. The wire services carried the story from coast to coast. The response was electric. It took off like gangbusters. Telegrams, letters, and telephone inquiries poured in from all across the country. The American people finally had a forum to express its concern about what was happening to the land, rivers, lakes, and air - and they did so with spectacular exuberance. For the next four months, two members of my Senate staff, Linda Billings and John Heritage, managed Earth Day affairs out of my Senate office.

Five months before Earth Day, on Sunday, November 30, 1969, The New York Times carried a lengthy article by Gladwin Hill reporting on the astonishing proliferation of environmental events:

"Rising concern about the environmental crisis is sweeping the nation's campuses with an intensity that may be on its way to eclipsing student discontent over the war in Vietnam...a national day of observance of environmental problems...is being planned for next spring...when a nationwide environmental 'teach-in'...coordinated from the office of Senator Gaylord Nelson is planned...."

What is perhaps most notable is:

Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level. We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself.

Some of Nelson’s achievements include:
Preserving the 2,000-mile Appalachian Trail
Mandate fuel efficiency standards in automobiles
Control of strip mining
Banning the use of DDT
Banning the use of 245T (agent orange)
Created the St. Croix Wild and Scenic Riverway and the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
Co-sponsored the National Environmental Education Act

In addition, Nelson co-sponsored the National Environmental Education Act and composed the legislation establishing the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission and Operation Mainstream/Green Thumb that employs the elderly in conservation projects.

Beginning with his rise to the Counsellorship of The Wilderness Society, he spent 14 years promoting the protection of our national forests and parks, and other public lands. More recently, he has focused US population issues and sustainability and still remains proactive in Earth Day activities, serving as Chairman of Earth Day XXV in 1995. Nelson also founded the Earth Day Network’s Earth Day 2000 Clean Energy Now! campaign. Nelson lives in Kensington, Maryland with his wife.

Senator Nelson is an excellent example of the idealism and perseverance necessary to the environmental movement, and how much can be achieved through a grass roots movement. The American Heritage Magazine (October 1993) called April 22, 1970, "one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy..."

Read Nelson’s complete thoughts on the purpose of Earth Day and how it began and about Nelson at EarthDay Network.

Read democracyforcalifornia.com's post on Earth Day Every Day.

Take a short quiz about your ecological footprint on the environment and learn about ways to get involved at http://www.earthday.net/default.aspx

Posted by at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 21, 2005

Republicans Bicker Over US Energy Bill

Today, a CNN reporter overheard a harsh dismissal of a key provision that seeks to advance hydrogen fuels just before the House began debate Wednesday on the energy bill. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA), who is a major proponent for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, was overheard whispering, "This is bulls--t," to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The two representatives were standing in a full Capitol Hill news conference as Representative John Doolittle (R-CA) spoke of the benefits of hydrogen fuel and the $2 billion alternative vehicle program proposed by Bush.

Asked by the reporter, Pombo said, "It's not a short-term solution because we just don't have the technology to produce it." He added the promised hydrogen-powered vehicles are "multimillion-dollar prototypes that nobody's going to buy. They're just not done economically that the average person can afford them. Hopefully, if this stuff all works, ten years from now they'll be able to produce them."

Doolittle is promoting the plan on the basis that it will "turbocharge" the development of pollution-free hydrogen vehicles in the United States. He would like to see hydrogen vehicles on the market by 2020. He added that we have the technology, and hydrogen fuel cells already exist but require more research to make them more affordable.

However, in an apparent about face after the conference, Pombo said that despite his remarks, it's important to provide funding for hydrogen technology in the current energy bill. He says, "Long term it’s good energy policy, but this is something that's out 10 years from now." Pombo’s chance to speak during the conference happened to immediately follow Doolittle. He opened his statement with an anecdote about having driven a hydrogen-powered vehicle on his ranch, and that "It was a lot of fun."

This is the third time an energy bill has passed the House (249 to 183) but appears likely to receive substantial resistance in the Senate, where all previous attempts have stalled. In each of the previous instances, senators could not agree about drilling in ANWR and legislation favoring producers of methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), a water-polluting additive in gasoline.

The White House is under mounting pressure to pass a new energy bill as the expensive imports of oil increasingly affect consumer spending, the US trade balance, and manufacturer’s prices. Public opinion polls confirm the sentiment that voters are growing more and more anxious about high fuel prices. This past week the average price of gasoline in the United States hit a record high at $2.28 per gallon. Bush has asked Congress to send him a comprehensive energy plan by August. However, Bush acknowledged the bill would do nothing to ease gas prices. (He seems to be saying that a lot lately, as with the Social Security plan that will do nothing to fix the solvency of Social Security.)

Democrats and environmental groups clearly, and quite reasonably, had plenty of criticism about the $8 billion bill that favors big oil companies. The bill provides lavish tax breaks for energy companies while failing to reduce US demand for foreign oil by imposing stricter mileage standards on new vehicles. Here's a dismal statistic: the last time fuel mileage standards were raised was in 1975 as a response to the Arab oil embargoes (Source). As an example, my 1991 Honda Accord gets 24 mpg in the city and 29 mpg on the highway, which is still competitive or better mileage than a large portion of cars produced today. It's appalling so little improvement, with the exception of hybrids, has been achieved in 14 years.

Republicans may not have provided any short term relief to average Americans, but they did not forget their humble billionaires. The bill would immediately protect oil companies from lawsuits over MTBE, which pollutes water and contaminate drinking water sources. The bill ensures producers of MTBE will be shielded from product liability lawsuits alleging MTBE is a defective product, and that companies knew all along it would cause water contamination problems that could pose severe drinking water concerns. Oil companies and refineries claim they need protection because there is an expected jump in the number of lawsuits resulting from the contamination of drinking water supplies. There are at least 80 lawsuits filed involving MTBE and the number is expected to rise significantly. In addition, the bill calls for phasing out MTBE by 2014, much longer than scientists say is necessary.

Democrats denied any opportunity to amend the bill to remove the provision that will protect big oil companies from certain lawsuits. Representative Lois Capps of (D-CA) attempted to strip the MTBE assistance from the energy bill but was defeated by a vote of 219 to 213. She stated that MTBE has contaminated groundwater affecting over 1,800 community water systems in 29 states with a potential cleanup cost of $29 billion. However, there is no saying how much it costs in health related problems resulting from the pollutant.

The current bill contains an additional $8 billion in energy tax breaks and incentives over 10 years. That funding is primarily targeted at increasing the production of fossil fuel sources such as oil, natural gas, and coal as well as nuclear power. In addition, the bill provides $2 billion over eight years to aid manufacturers to shift away from producing MTBE and to research deep water oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, the energy bill allows drilling in ANWR, another provision Democrats attempted to remove but was blocked by Republicans.

By the way, Texas is the chief producer of MTBE in the United States, and guess who are the two most zealous supporters of MTBE assistance for corporations? Yes, that's right, our two first-class business-indulging Texas friends, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton from Ennis. The liability waiver, which Tom DeLay also backed in the previous 2003 energy plan, ended up killing it in the Senate where senators refused to accept the provision. The chairman of the Senate Energy Committee said the House must develop a compromise on MTBE before the Senate will approve the final energy bill. Barton responded, "We are working with our friends in the Senate and folks in the House to come up with that compromise. We have an agreement to have an agreement." Sorry Representative Capps, but that's code for you're not a 'friend', but Exxon Mobil Corporation and ConnocoPhillips are and they both have large operations in Texas.

Bush has stated with the price of oil consistently exceeding $50 per barrel, energy companies could do without tax incentives for oil and gas exploration. The White House did express some hesitation over the $2 billion for research into deep water oil and gas development. However, it is highly doubtful he would veto a bill that favors industry. Bush commended the passage of the energy bill as an "important step" for the United States that it secures America's "energy future" by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign energy sources.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the bill calling it a "disgraceful... giveaway" that was "clearly designed to help energy companies make more money, not help the American people save money." She further described the bill as "anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer and anti-environment," a handout to oil companies who sought sanctuary with their champion Tom DeLay.

Here are a few excerpts from her speech before the US House of Representatives:

Today, communities across America are suffering the effects of MTBE. MTBE contamination of groundwater and surface water is a major problem in my state of California, and many drinking water wells have had to be shut down because of this contaminant. MTBE contamination has been detected in all 50 states, and a recent study indicates that it could cost between $12 and $63 billion to clean up. That's $12 to $63 billion to clean up something the industry knew was dirty to begin with, and withheld information about that from Congress.

[...]

"Not surprisingly, the MTBE producers and the big oil companies want to be protected from liability for contaminating our drinking water supplies. And not surprisingly, Tom DeLay and House Republicans are happy to oblige. Mr. DeLay insisted on the MTBE provision in the last Congress, even at the cost of killing the energy bill. He insisted on it again this year. In fact, this is the Majority Leader's bill we are debating today.

[...]

"But in their attempt to shield MTBE producers and big oil companies from accountability, Republicans have created a huge unfunded mandate for states and localities, and it is taxpayers who are stuck with the bill. Remember unfunded mandates? Wasn't that principle number one of the Contract with America? No unfunded mandates.

Read Pelosi's complete speech before the House about the serious health risks posed by MTBE at The Stakeholder.

A poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs for the Associated Press and AOL News found in a survey of 1,000 people, 51% said they face financial difficulties if gas prices remain high for the next six months and 30% classified the impact would be serious. Many people are facing deciding among gas, groceries, and medicine, especially those who live on limited incomes. Gas prices have caused 58% to reduce their driving, 57% to cut back on other expenses, and 41% to change their summer vacation plans to stay closer to home.

Bush should take note of this statistic: 62% disapprove of the president's handling of the nation's energy problems.

Many of the nation's car manufacturers are taking enormous hits to their budgets as sales of big trucks and SUVs have plummeted. I certainly have noticed an increase in the number of them parked in used car lots along the road. Sales of Ford's largest SUVs – the Excursion, Explorer, and Expedition – all fell by well over 24% from January to March this year.

Prices of gas are expected to remain above $2 at least through the summer. If you are considering buying a hybrid you might want to do that before 2006. Right now you receive a one-time tax break of $2,000, but beginning in 2006 it drops to $500 (Source).

Why not celebrate Earth Day on Friday by contacting your representatives and telling them what you think of this massive exploitation of Americans – YOU?

Senator John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Southeast Texas Office:
5300 Memorial Drive
Suite 980
Houston, Texas 77007
Tel: 713-572-3337
Fax: 713-572-3777

Senator Kay Hutchison
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4304
Tel: 202-224-5922
Fax: 202-224-0776
Web Form: hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm

Houston Office:
1919 Smith Street
Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77002
Tel: 713-653-3456
Fax: 713-209-3459

Posted by at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 22, 2005

EPA Puts Children at Risk for Lead

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now taking measures to weaken any attempt to eliminate the primary remaining source of lead poisoning, household paint and dust. The threat for lead exposure in children is determined primarily by environmental exposure in the child’s home. The most common form of lead exposure to children is lead-based paint that has deteriorated into paint chips and lead dust that can become airborne or ingested through contact.

Here's what the EPA has to say about lead: "Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death. Children 6 years old and under are most at risk, because their bodies are growing quickly."

The following is from www.bushgreenwatch.org:

"There is more than a little irony here. The EPA--the same agency that took lead out of gasoline--is now weakening any attempt to eliminate the most important remaining source of lead poisoning: household paint and dust."

So spoke Dr. Herbert L. Needleman, one of the nation's premiere experts on the impact of lead poisoning on children. Dr. Needleman spoke with BushGreenwatch upon learning that the Environmental Protection Agency has quietly removed the requirement that only certified contractors using workers trained in lead-safe practices may do remodeling or renovation in buildings constructed before 1978.

According to internal briefings obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), President Bush's new EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, has scrapped that requirement in favor of a voluntary approach.[1] Dr. Needleman described the voluntary approach as "a strategy that has never worked in lead abatement."

An EPA spokesperson said the decision to switch to a voluntary approach was not made by Administrator Johnson, but would not say who did.

Citing EPA's removal of lead from gasoline as "the most important public health achievement of the past 30 years," Dr. Needleman said the one important remaining source is lead in the paint and dust of older housing. EPA estimates that some 1.4 million children under age 7—the prime developmental years--live in households where they are at risk of lead exposure.

Addressing the damage lead poisoning causes to children's brain development, Dr. Needleman, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and other physicians and lead investigators said that "as pediatricians who have seen the tragic consequences of lead poisoning close up, we are outraged at the quiet abandonment of a program that could eliminate this avoidable epidemic." [2]

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 434,000 U.S. children under the age of 5 currently have blood-lead levels linked with serious developmental health consequences. Most of them live in the inner cities.

"The Bush Administration has walked away from the national goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. Ruch said PEER is working to organize a coalition to press for implementation of the "long-stalled regulations," and, if neccessary, take the issue to court.

###

SOURCES:
[1] PEER press release, Mar. 14, 2005.
[2] Letter to Journalists. (Journalists may contact BushGreenwatch.org for a copy of the letter.)

The following is from an EPA brochure entitled "Protect Your Children from Lead Poisoning." It even says, "Lead poisoning is a serious problem for young children -- the younger the child, the greater the risk." Take special note of the second reason for not removing lead paint yourself.

Don’t remove lead paint yourself
Families have been poisoned by scraping or sanding lead paint because these activities generate large amounts of lead dust. Lead dust from repairs or renovations of older buildings can remain in the building long after the work is completed. Heating paint may release lead into the air.
- Ask your local or state health department if they will test your home for lead paint. Some will test for free. Home test kits cannot detect small amounts of lead under some conditions.
- Hire a person with special training for correcting lead paint problems to remove lead paint from your home, someone who knows how to do this work safely and has the proper equipment to clean up thoroughly. Don’t try to remove lead paint yourself.
- All occupants, especially children and pregnant women, should leave the building until all work is finished and a thorough cleanup is done.

I even found the following information on the risks of lead listed on the EPA’s own website:

FACT: Lead exposure can harm young children and babies even before they are born.
FACT: Even children who seem healthy can have high levels of lead in their bodies.
FACT: You can get lead in your body by breathing or swallowing lead dust, or by eating soil or paint chips containing lead.
FACT: You have many options for reducing lead hazards. In most cases, lead-based paint that is in good condition is not a hazard.
FACT: Removing lead-based paint improperly can increase the danger to your family.

Health Effects of Lead

* Childhood lead poisoning remains a major environmental health problem in the U.S. *

* Even children who appear healthy can have dangerous levels of lead in their bodies. *

People can get lead in their body if they:
- Put their hands or other objects covered with lead dust in their mouths.
- Eat paint chips or soil that contains lead.
- Breathe in lead dust (especially during renovations that disturb painted surfaces).
Lead is even more dangerous to children than adults because:
- Babies and young children often put their hands and other objects in their mouths. These objects can have lead dust on them.
- Children's growing bodies absorb more lead.
- Children's brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead.
If not detected early, children with high levels of lead in their bodies can suffer from:
- Damage to the brain and nervous system
- Behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity)
- Slowed growth
- Hearing problems
- Headaches
Lead is also harmful to adults. Adults can suffer from:
- Difficulties during pregnancy
- Other reproductive problems (in both men and women)
- High blood pressure
- Digestive problems
- Nerve disorders
- Memory and concentration problems
- Muscle and joint pain

By enforcing regulations on lead and its removal from buildings, we avoid the long-term health costs associated with children who would otherwise suffer from lead poisoning.

The Centers for Disease Control even considers lead poisoning one of the most preventable environmental diseases of young children. Approximately, one million children have elevated blood levels. Additionally, the CDC states the "risk for lead exposure in children is determined primarily by environmental exposure in the child's home. The most common source for lead exposure for children is lead-based paint that has deteriorated into paint chips and lead dust." Furthermore, "lead-based paint is more likely to be present in older houses. In the United States, approximately 83% of privately owned housing units and 86% of public housing units built before 1980 contain some lead-based paint."

It is obvious from the EPA's decision and the information that it provides on its own website about the health risks associated with lead that the EPA is just being extraordinarily hyprocritical and blatantly ignoring sound evidence of the hazards of lead exposure. It's a decision the administration has made for a short-term gain while playing a reckless game of jeopardy with the long-term health of our nation's children.

Posted by at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 18, 2005

ANWR: Not a solution to our growing energy demand

The Senate voted 51-49 to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Wednesday. The vote is not the final word on ANWR, but it makes drilling in protected areas of Alaska wilderness more likely than ever. In order for drilling to start, the House and Senate will need to pass a resolution that will explicitly authorize the opening of the wildlife refuge. By including the measure in the budget resolution, it prevents the opposition from using a filibuster to prevent drilling in ANWR.

Three Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye both from Hawaii, voted with 48 Republicans to endorse drilling. Seven Republicans crossed over to join 41 Democrats and Senator James Jeffords, the independent from Vermont, in opposing the measure. They include John McCain of Arizona, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe both from Maine.

The idea of drilling in the Alaska wilderness was touted as a way to directly ease the high cost of oil, which has risen to a new all-time high to above $56 per barrel. However, Senator Cantwell of Washington, among others, said it will take at least 10 years before any ANWR oil will be sold, and even then it will have only a minimal impact on the price of gas.

No one really has any idea of how much oil actually lies beneath the surface of ANWR. Only one pilot well was drilled and the results of that project have remained secret. In 1998, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) used seismic studies to determine that between 5.6 billion and 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil lie beneath the surface of ANWR. The United States consumes 7.3 billion barrels a day, which means the supply of oil that we’re talking about could supply the US for as little as 9 months to slightly more than 2 years, which obviously won’t have any significant impact on the long-term supply of oil.

According to the USGS, even at today’s high oil prices, only about 7 billion barrels of oil could profitably be brought to market. Even at peak production, which would be about 1 million barrels a day in 2020 or 2025, ANWR would only supply 4% of the nation’s projected energy demand, which means the US will still be highly dependent on foreign energy supplies.

What we really need is more conservation, alternate forms of energy, not greater supply.

Even some modest measures to increase energy efficiency would do wonders without endangering the integrity of the Alaskan wilderness. Just by making light trucks as efficient as ordinary cars (the SUV loophole), we could save 1 million barrels per day. Additionally, by raising fuel-economy standards to 40 miles per gallon, we would save 2.5 million barrels per day. Other measures including tax credits to aid car manufacturers to produce fuel-efficient cars, or to develop a more aggressive biofuels program to replace some of the gasoline we use would further improve our energy standing. Promoting renewable energy generation is another obvious method for cutting our dependence on foreign fuel sources.

Renewable energy also makes sense for security purposes. Here are some facts I learned from Karl Rabago, President of the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association (TREIA) at the Second Annual Texas Environmental Leadership Conference in Houston in early March. Interest in constructing new nuclear plants is growing again because they can produce large amounts of electricity without producing harmful greenhouse gases. Here's a comparison of building a new nuclear plant to constructing a new wind farm.

To build another nuclear power plant similar to Comanche Peak
- Energy generation capacity 2,300 MW
- 20 years to construct from time license is issued, not including planning and design
- Cost about $12.5 billion
- Water cooled
- Radioactive waste
- Security challenges (If one of the two reactors is attacked there is an immediate loss of at least half of its energy generation capacity.)
- No other land use possible around reactors.

To build a new wind farm (in order to meet Texas' renewable energy mandate for 2007 - likely to be achieved in 2006):
- Energy generation capacity 2,000 MW
- About 9 years to construct from start to finish
- Market cost $2 billion
- No water needed
- No wastes
- Hard to target (1,400 units spread across state. A terrorist would have to hit them all to shut down the entire system)
- Still possible to use land surrounding generators for ranching or farming.

There are currently three sets of bills in the Texas House and Senate that promote increasing the amount of renewable energy generated in Texas to varying degrees. I have arranged them in order of increasing renewable energy achievements. They are paired with their companion bill.

Some vocabulary:

Distributed renewable energy – sources of energy connected to the electricity grid at the distribution level, such as a solar panel on your roof, solar thermal electrical heating systems, small wind powered generators, biomass, geothermal energy heating systems (all sources of energy with the ability to be constructed on a small scale for a building or home)

Competitive renewable energy generation zones – locations to receive special consideration with respect to transmission service due to the location’s potential for cost-effective renewable power development

A megawatt (MW) – In Texas, a megawatt provides enough electricity for a year to power three to four hundred homes (Source).

HB 1671/SB 533 Rep. Hunter (R-Abilene), Sen. Fraser (R-Horshoe Bay):
- Calls for an additional 5,000 MW of generating capacity from renewable energy by January 1, 2015
- Total renewable energy generation shall be 5,880 MW by January 1, 2015
- Calls for 10,000 MW of renewable energy to be installed by January 1, 2025
- Calls for a minimum of 500 MW of renewable energy generating capacity from non-wind sources
- Calls for identifying competitive renewable zones
- Calls for a report to be filed no later than January 1, 2007 evaluating competitive renewable zones, establishing the cost of additional electrical transmission service improvements, and the impact of additional renewable energy generation has on system reliability.

HB 1798/SB 836 Rep. Swinford (R-Amarillo), Sen. Duncan (R-Lubbock)
- Calls for an additional 10,000 MW of generating capacity from renewable energy by January 1, 2015
- Total renewable energy generation shall be 2,880 MW by January 1, 2009, 4,880 MW by January 1, 2011, 7,880 MW by January 1, 2013, and 10,880 MW by January 1, 2015
- Calls for a minimum of 500 MW of renewable energy generating capacity from distributed energy resources
- Calls for identifying competitive renewable energy generation, specifically areas suitable to develop at least 1,000 MW of energy a year
- Calls for the construction of electrical transmission lines and distribution service providers in partially developed competitive renewable energy generation zones in order to bring renewable energy to the market

HB 2692/SB 1075 Rep. Gallego (D-Alpine), Sen. Zaffirini (D-Laredo)
- Calls for 20% of all energy produced in Texas to be generated from renewable sources by January 1, 2020
- Total renewable energy generation shall be 2,280 MW by January 1, 2007, 2,880 MW by January 1, 2009, 10,880 MW by January 1, 2015
- Calls for a minimum of 500 MW of renewable energy generating capacity from distributed energy resources of which 100 MW will be installed small-scale projects (public buildings, houses, businesses, etc.)
- Calls for the establishment of a renewable credits trading system to provide an incentive for the further development of renewable energy
- Calls for identifying competitive renewable energy generation zones and for the consideration of designating new zones each year, specifically areas suitable to develop at least 1,000 MW of energy a year
- Calls for the implementation of marginal pricing tax to maximize the benefits of renewable energy technologies (benefits to the environment, reliability benefits, economic benefits, security benefits)
- Calls for the interconnection of existing and future renewable energy generators to the existing power grid in order to bring renewable energy to the market

View the complete text of the bills at Texas Legislature Online.

Isn’t it funny how the version written by two Democrats makes the greatest achievements in renewable energy generation?

Since HB 1671/SB 533 proposed by Rep. Hunter and Sen. Fraser only proposes a total of 5,000 MW by January 2015, and the amount includes the nearly 2,880 MW that Texas is required to have by 2009, it does not set that high of a goal. The other two bills will require 10,000 MW of renewable energy generating capacity 10 years sooner in 2015 instead of 2025. The main issue holding the production of renewable energy up at the moment is getting the electrical transmission lines to the areas where wind and other renewable energy is produced. These areas are typically in remote areas of West Texas that are not near the existing electricity grid. Therefore, either HB 1798/SB 836 or HB 2692/SB 1075 make much greater achievements towards renewable energy.

The latest news from Texas Renewable Energies Industry Association.

Projections Show 2009 Requirement may be Reached this Year
Texas is expected to meet a 2009 mandate three years early by sharply increasing the use of renewable energy to generate electricity. The Texas electric restructuring law of 1999 required an additional 2,000 megawatts of renewable generating capacity in Texas by 2009.

Developers have added 1,190 megawatts on-line since the law was passed, and projects adding 486 megawatts are either under construction or have been officially announced. Transmission agreements have been finalized for another 720 megawatts. Developers are expected to push hard to get new projects on-line by Dec. 31 because federal renewable energy tax incentives expire at the end of this year.

Renewable energy uses several sources, including wind, landfill gas, water (hydro), biomass and solar. In Texas, wind power currently accounts for 96 percent of renewable generating capacity added since 1999. At this time most wind generators are located in an area of west Texas comprising Crane, Crockett, Pecos and Upton counties. Most of the new and planned projects are in a corridor about 100 miles wide along I-20 from Abilene to west of Odessa.

The current law encourages the construction of renewable energy projects, reduces air pollution from fossil fuel generation and responds to Texans' willingness to pay more for clean energy. However, a key issue in expanding the use of renewable energy from West Texas is the ability of the transmission system to move power from generation sources to customers at a reasonable cost.

Approximately three percent of the state's total electric generating capacity comes from renewable energy. In Texas, a megawatt provides enough electricity for a year to power three to four hundred homes.

More sites with information:
http://www.infinitepower.org/
http://www.treia.org/info.htm (provides links to other Texas organizations, government agencies, and education and research organizations)

Posted by at 07:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2005

EPA Fails on Mercury Reductions

The following is a press release from Karen Hadden, the Executive Director of the SEED Coalition. She does an excellent job of describing the public health risks of the EPA's recent decision to go soft on power plants that emit dangerous levels of mercury. The new rule establishes a cap-and-trade program for mercury that is less stringent than the emission levels set out in the Clean Air Act.

According to an article in the Washington Post, the lower standard was agreed upon in advance in order to not upstage Bush's Clear Skies proposal that is stalled in Congress. Additionally, to make it possible to institute a trading scheme, the administration had to rescind a decision made by the Clinton administration to list mercury as a "hazardous air pollutant."

Mark your calendars:
The HCDP Environmental Initiative for Houston Region Democrats meets monthly from January to October. It's next meeting is on Monday, March 28 from 6-8pm at the HCDP Headquarters.

EPA Fails on Mercury Reductions
Final Rule Even Weaker Than Proposal and Won’t Protect Texas’ Children

Austin, TX The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a rule that allows power plants to continue emitting dangerous levels of mercury long past the deadline set by current law. Compliance with the Clean Air Act would require power plants to reduce their emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin, by about 90% by 2008. In contrast, EPA’s final rule establishes a “cap-and-trade” program for mercury under which power plants will be able to avoid meaningful reductions until after 2025.

A press conference will be held tomorrow, Tuesday, March 15th, at 9:30 AM at the South Steps of the Texas State Capitol, 11th and Congress.

“EPA is failing to protect children from mercury poisoning. Their lax rules will not assure clean up in Texas, the worst state in the nation for toxic power plant mercury. Our children are already at risk for permanent brain damage and learning disabilities, and instead of requiring the clean up we need, EPA’s rules will allow polluters to buy their way out of clean-up through a “trading” scheme. This has never before been allowed due to the risk of toxic hotspots. Texas is already the nation’s mercury hotspot, and we need clean up to protect our children, not giveaways to utilities.” stated Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition. She noted that “specific mercury controls for power plants are affordable, and for Texas could run as little as $.43 - $1.29 a month for an average household, less than the cost of a cup of coffee a month, not bad in order prevent brain damage in children and the resulting special education costs.”

In Texas, there has been outcry against the weak EPA policy, including a rally outside the EPA Headquarters in Dallas in March, 2004, and a citizen organized public hearing held because requests that EPA to hold a hearing in the worst mercury polluted state in the nation were denied. In January, over 30 individuals representing businesses, fishermen and fishing guides requested a meeting in writing with Congressman Ralph Hall, who chairs the Subcommitteee on Energy and Air Quality, but his office did not respond.

The New York Times reported today (Monday, March 14) that the cap for Texas under the EPA rules would be 4.7 tons, or 9400 pounds. “For two of the three years in which utilities have now been reporting mercury, Texas emissions from coal-burning power plants came in under 9400 pounds, so how can anyone claim this is a reduction of toxic mercury pollution in Texas?” asked Hadden. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) numbers in pounds for mercury air emissions from Texas utilities are 9815 for 2002, 8992 for 2001, and 9302 in 2000.

“Fortunately, Texas legislators have stepped to the plate with bills that would provide protection for Texas children, to do what the EPA previously said can be done, but now refuses to do in cleaning up the mercury from coal-burning power plants. Senator Judith Zaffirini of San Antonio and Representative Eddie Rodriguez of Austin have filed bills calling for cleaner air and a mercury reduction that matches the original requirements of the Clean Air Act. The bills would reduce mercury from Texas’ coal-burning power plants to 10% of 2002 levels by 2008, the original requirement of the Clean Air Act MACT provision “ stated Hadden.

The Texas Medical Association Committee on Maternal and Perinatal Health produced a Consensus Statement on Methylmercury and Public Health, calling for treating mercury as hazardous and for reducing mercury in order to protect health. The statement is online at http://www.seedcoalition.org/tx_med_assoc_maternal_health.html.

“Given the c