Environment

Global warming, healthy food, clean water, population control, and nature protection. Comprehensive coverage on Environment here.

Are Those Pretty Fireworks Toxic?
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on July 4, 2009 at 11:56 AM.

Scientists are increasingly worried that the beautiful fireworks millions of Americans will be watching this Independence Day contain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to the environment. A particular focus is perchlorate, which helps “create the combustion reaction needed for the explosion.” According to a 2009 article in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, “the amount of perchlorate in nearby bodies of water could increase by anywhere from 24 to 1,068 times the amount present before the fireworks, and that it takes 20 to 80 days for the chemical levels to subside.” When ingested, perchlorate can hinder the thyroid’s production of growth hormones. In response, some chemists are looking for other solutions, including cleaner-burning fireworks that use nitrate-based oxidants.

Congress: Back-Room Deals and Inexorable Slides to the Right
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on June 23, 2009 at 2:49 PM.

A deal has been nearly reached on the climate change bill:

House Democratic leaders late last night released a revamped, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill (pdf), clearing the way for floor debate Friday even though it remains uncertain if they will have the votes to pass it.

Collin Peterson, and his Amalgamated Brotherhood of Climate Change Isn't Our Damn Problem, appears to have won just about all of his desired concessions:

The House bill posted on the Rules Committee Web site has grown from the 946-page version adopted last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sources on and off Capitol Hill said the bulk of the changes largely reflect requests from the eight other committees that also had jurisdiction over the bill, including the Ways and Means Committee and Science and Technology Committee.

While environmental groups and climate change activists have repeatedly vowed that the bill needs to be strengthened, no amendments will be allowed on the floor debate that will actually allow the bill to be strengthened. Instead, the backroom deal means that coal and agribusiness get their concessions, but there isn't even a chance for green groups to try and make the bill better. Everything will be thrown together in a single manager's amendment:

Sponsors expect to draft a manager's amendment later this week that reflects additional deals reached among lawmakers, according to several House Democratic aides.

And if you want to know what the final language of the bill is before it is voted on, good luck with that.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Coal Industry Juggernaut Supplies GOP Group With Propaganda
Posted by Victor Zapanta, Think Progress on June 19, 2009 at 4:23 AM.

Leaders of a new GOP group, the “Rural American Solutions Group,” are distributing a document attacking climate change legislation as an economic burden to most of the country. As it turns out, the information in the press release was provided to the Republican congressmen by Peabody Energy, a juggernaut of the coal industry. Staffers for GOP Reps. Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA) are emailing around a map that purports to detail “how the Democrats’ National Energy Tax unfairly targets rural Americans.”

A closer look at the source of the image reveals the document’s origins:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The ABCs of the House GOP's Dick Cheney Energy Plan
Posted by Josh Dorner, Sierra Club on June 15, 2009 at 4:00 PM.

They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. It also appears that you can't teach a bunch of old-line conservatives about New Energy for America. The leadership of the increasingly embattled GOP minority in Congress continues to circle the wagons around the failed policies of the past. As the Waxman-Markey clean energy jobs plan moves toward a House floor vote as soon as 10 days from now, the House GOP leadership unveiled their "alternative." 

Unfortunately, their so-called alternative was a not-even-thinly-veiled redux of the failed Bush-Cheney energy policies of yesteryear. You know, the ones that ruined the economy, made global warming worse, and left us even more dependent on tin-pot dictators to meet our growing addiction to oil. Yeah, those.

Our friends at Media Matters for America took a little looksee at the plans put forward by Bush and Cheney and the House GOP's latest plan, the American Energy Act. The two plans looked suspiciously similar, shall we say. Almost as if a group of powerful special interests in the energy industry essentially dictated the plans behind closed doors. Not that that would ever happen… 

The Bush-Cheney plan was based on increased oil drilling on the outer continental shelf, expedited construction of more oil refineries, building more nuclear power plants, opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling, increasing the production of dirty and destructive oil shale.

And what's the House GOP's plan based on, you say? Why, on increased oil drilling on the outer continental shelf, expedited construction of more oil refineries, building more nuclear power plants, opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling, increasing the production of dirty and destructive oil shale.

To be fair, their plan isn't all recycled from the Cheney era. It also incorporates John McCain's disastrous $1 trillion (yes, trillion with a T) campaign pledge to build 100 new nuclear power plants.  

And, just in case you wondering -- no, the House GOP still does not believe in global warming. Thank. You. Very. Much.

Mixed Bag on Coal Mining Decision from Obama Administration
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on June 15, 2009 at 12:12 PM.

This post was co-written by Bruce Nilles and Mary Anne Hitt, director and deputy director, respectively, of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.

The Obama Administration announced steps to end the fast-tracking of certain mountaintop removal coal mine permits and to add tougher enforcement in Appalachia, important steps that -- with additional actions -- could greatly reduce the devastation to communities, waterways and mountains. However, these new policies alone will not necessarily improve conditions in Appalachia unless additional steps are taken and enforcement is stepped up significantly, and hundreds of mountains remain in peril.

That is why the Sierra Club is launching a new website called "What's At Stake," where you can track all the mountaintop removal permits now before the Obama Administration and learn more about the mountains and communities whose fate hangs in the balance.

After a West Virginia court ruled against it recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed revoking the nationwide "one-size-fits-all" permit it had used to authorize the dumping of coal mining waste into hundreds of miles of Appalachian headwater streams. The bad news, though, is that the Obama Administration says it will continue to allow mountaintop removal mining to bury streams under tons of mining waste.

Kudos to GQ for Revealing the Coal Industry's Dirty Secrets
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on June 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM.

While lots of mainstream glossy mags take on some green issues, like Elle, Sports Illustrated, and Glamor, none that I've seen so far has picked a more important topic and done a better job at it than GQ's new feature on coal by Sean Flynn.

The narrative of the article focuses on the TVA coal ash spill in December in Tennessee, which we've reported on at length. It tells the story of a few of the folks who made their home, some for generations, around the area where the Emory River hits the Clinch -- a spot where TVA built their Kingston Fossil Plant to burn coal. For most of the people living there, the TVA plant was a neighborhood fixture, a big employer and a means for cheap electricity. Few questioned the potential hazards until the December catastrophe.

Here's a great quote from the story:

You assumed, when you live next to one of the largest coal-fired plants in the world, that it would not harm you, and that is not as irrational as it might first appear. You assumed that coal was at least relatively clean because you've been told that it is, and the air is clear and the water, nothing but beautiful water, is clean and there is a wildlife sanctuary in the big plant's shadows. You assumed that a green levee engineered by federal employees would not fall down. You assumed that the place you always wanted to live because it was so much prettier than anywhere else you'd ever lived wouldn't, in an instant, turn gray and poisoned.

And when you discover all of those assumptions were false, what more are you willing to believe? What more should you believe?

While the (quite lengthy) piece provides great reporting about the effects of the spill, which has been deemed the largest manmade environmental disaster in our country's history, and its narrative is sustained by stories of the folks who lived there, loved their homes, and lost it all -- the best part of the Flynn's article is how he confronts the myth of clean coal. Here's a part where he writes about the Hawthorn Group, a marketing firm hired by coal companies to convince the American people that coal can somehow be clean:

Obama still talks about it, and he gets cheers every time. Because the public now believes in clean coal. Hawthorn polled what the firm considered "public opinion leaders" in September 2007 and again at the end of 2008 on, among other things, whether they favored burning coal to generate electricity. The first go-round was a split: 46 percent in favor, 50 percent opposed. But after a year of Hawthorn bleating "clean coal" over and over, support rose to 72 percent--and opposition nose-dived to 22 percent.

Results such as these would be impressive no matter what the issue. Yet they are especially so in this instance, because the idea Hawthorn is selling -- Coal is clean! - -is complete horseshit.

Thank you Sean Flynn! Clean coal is horseshit, indeed. I hope Obama reads GQ.  Kudos to Flynn and GQ for a story that takes on all the aspects of why coal isn't clean -- from the extraction to the burning -- and all the hazards of what happens to the toxic waste at every stage.

And here's one last bit from the piece to give you something to think about while you click over GQ's site to read the whole story:

In a sense, then, our appetite for coal--our want and need for lights and televisions and toasters--is a slow-motion suicide pact, no different really from that of a two-pack-a-day smoker: It's all very pleasant and satisfying in the moment, but sooner or later...

Newly Marketed 'American Girl' Doll Accidently Named After Alleged Eco-Terrorist
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on June 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM.

Apparently hoping to expand their marketing reach, Mattel recently released their Jewish-themed doll. But it seems the toy company may have accidentally stumbled onto another market. As ABC reports: "Rebecca Rubin -- an alleged domestic terrorist on the lam since 2006 -- appears to have devoted her life's work to bringing down the capitalist system. But Rebecca Rubin is also an 18-inch doll, the newest in the American Girl collection, which brings in a whopping $463 million each year for the toy giant Mattel."

Woops. Apparently Mattel does about as much research as those folks who organized the Tea Bagging protests.

The New York Times explains:

Rebecca J. Rubin, who sometimes goes by the alias Little Missy, is a fugitive who was indicted in 2006 in a series of arson fires in Oregon dating to 1997, according to her F.B.I. wanted poster.

The wanted Ms. Rubin carries a $50,000 reward and "should be considered armed and dangerous," her wanted poster says. The doll Ms. Rubin costs $95 and can be bought with pet kittens and a toy challah bread.

While Mattel is hoping people regard their Rebecca Rubin fiasco as an unfortunate coincidence, the FBI is hoping it may actually bring in their real suspect. But Hamilton Nolan writing for Gawker has a better idea: "Clearly the solution is to arrest everyone responsible for creating American Girl Dolls."

ShellGuilty Rallies in NYC and London Today!
Posted by Staff, ShellGuilty on May 27, 2009 at 1:43 AM.

If you haven’t already heard, the Wiwa v. Shell trial was postponed yesterday. No new opening date was given and rumors are swirling that Shell must be scrambling at the 11th hour for an out-of-court settlement. It’s hard not to speculate but the plaintiffs, defendants, and court haven’t said anything else about it.

However, following on a large protest in Ogoni yesterday where soldiers arrested dozens of people trying to reach the rallying point, solidarity RALLIES WILL GO ON AS SCHEDULED in New York and London!

NEW YORK: 12 noon at Foley Square near the courthouse.

LONDON: 8:30am at the Shell Center near Waterloo station

There has been a flurry of media reporting that surely has Shell feeling the pressure. We will hold our rallies today to continue turning up the heat on Shell to end its abuses in Nigeria and to show solidarity and support for the Ogoni and other Niger Delta peoples struggling for an end to the oil-fueled oppression and environmental degradation they have faced for far too long.

If you are in or near New York or London, please join us and spread the word!

Help Stop the Coal Industry's Desperate Attempts to Thwart Change on Global Warming
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on May 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM.

This week’s blog post is co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, deputy director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.

This week, friends of big oil and coal fired one of their first shots across the bow of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency’s power to set limits on global warming pollution. The frenzy that followed in Washington and in the media should serve as a wake up call to anyone who has not yet weighed in to support EPA’s proposed finding that global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare.

By pulling one line out of an obscure government document and circulating it out of context, Republicans in Congress tried to make the case that they had found a “smoking gun” revealing that the Obama White House predicts economic collapse should the EPA regulate global warming pollution. The White House quickly issued a statement making it clear they had said no such thing, in a statement with the fitting title “Clearing the Air.”  A hat tip to David Roberts at Grist for unraveling how this non-story became national news.

Fortunately, you now have the chance to weigh in and counter the fear mongering by demonstrating that Americans want strong action on global warming.

Monday marks the first of two public hearings on EPA’s draft endangerment finding issued in mid-April, a historic finding by the agency that global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is a comprehensive science based review of expected threats that our nation faces from global warming, including more severe heat waves, disease epidemics, water shortages, and crop failures.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Climate Bill Will Continue to Be Watered Down
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on May 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM.

When the original draft of the The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), was introduced on March 31st, it was considered good, though far from perfect, by most progressive climate change analysts and organizations. Climate Progress gave the bill a B+ (whatever that means). Greenpeace wrote that the bill was a first good step, must that it must be strengthened. The Sierra Club called it a "strong start." Friends of the Earth issued a more mixed reaction.

Last week, as part of a pre-markup deal, the already imperfect ACES was watered down a bit more. In response, Climate Progress lowered its grade, and several environmental groups issued an angry joint statement. The Sierra Club has vowed to "strengthen" the bill. Dave Roberts hoped that it can be strengthened in the Senate.

However, in all likelihood, the ACES will never be strengthened beyond its current form. All of the progressive climate change groups listed above would do extremely well just if the bill did not get any worse. This is because there are several more hurdles for the bill to leap, which I attempt to describe in detail in the extended entry.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Clean Energy Jobs Creation: Will the Senate Do the Right Thing?
Posted by Staff, Campaign for an Energy-Efficient America on May 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM.

[The following is a press release from Campaign for an Energy-Efficient America.]

According to a statement released by the Energy and Commerce Committee, House Democrats negotiating a major energy and climate bill have reached an agreement to include a plan requiring utilities to reduce electricity demand 5 to 8 percent by 2020 through energy efficiency measures.  The Campaign for an Energy-Efficient America, a national coalition of more than 75 business and environmental organizations advocating for a strong energy efficiency resource standard, released the following statement:

“In their initial energy and climate legislative draft, House Democrats recognized the value of energy efficiency by setting a strong target that would have required electricity and natural gas utilities to achieve cumulative energy savings of 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively, by 2020.  The compromise reached to improve prospects for the bill’s passage shrinks the efficiency target to five to eight percent – literally leaving tens of billions of dollars in consumer savings on the bargaining table.

“The original Waxman-Markey efficiency standard could have delivered 222,000 new jobs and nearly $170 billion in savings for consumers and businesses across the country, while making it easier and more cost-effective to achieve climate goals set forth in the bill.

“The Senate must recognize that energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest and cleanest way to meet our growing energy needs. Fifteen percent electric efficiency and 10 percent natural gas efficiency standards are achievable and will spur job growth and consumer savings. Both deserve to be included in any final bill sent to President Obama.”

Food Fight: Are You Sick of Being Fed by the Corporations?
Posted by Jan Frel, AlterNet on May 7, 2009 at 12:49 PM.

This clip is from the new documentary Food Fight -- a look at how American agricultural policy and food culture developed in the 20th century, and how the California food movement has created a counter-revolution against big agribusiness. This clip features Will Allen, McArthur Genius Grant Winner 2008.

Note for Santa Cruz residents: You can go to a screening on Tuesday, May 12th, 6:30pm at the Riverfront Twin Cinemas. Special guests (Woody Tasch) and local farmers, supper reception after at the Farmhouse Culture Kitchen, 303 Potrero St.

Soot, the Little Black Particle That Harms People and Helps Global Warming
Posted by Staff, StopSoot.org on April 28, 2009 at 2:36 PM.

Soot, also known as black carbon, is the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide, and it's totally preventable. We already have the technology to avoid producing it; it's just a matter of using it.

We need tighter standards on diesel fuel at home, and we need to finance technology transfer abroad. Tell the Obama administration that reducing black carbon now will buy precious time for the Arctic, and improve public health.

Stop Soot Now

'60 Minutes' Blows it on Coal Segment
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on April 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM.

Last night the CBS news program "60 Minutes" did a segment about so-called clean coal. Unfortunately, they missed the boat ... big time.

Here's their intro:

The future of our climate might be summed up in one question: what do we do about coal? Coal generates nearly half the electricity in the United States and the world. But it's the dirtiest fuel of all when it comes to carbon dioxide, or CO2, the leading greenhouse gas.

The entire segment focused on whether it was possible to get carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS) to trap CO2 gases from coal-burning power plants onto all of our coal plants in time to stave off our climate crisis. To begin with, the technology has serious problems and there is no way that it can be implemented in the time frame top scientists tell us we need to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions -- less than 10 years.

Despite all that, the basis of their segment was also flawed from the get go. Cleaning up coal is not the answer to the climate crisis. In fact, what we should be doing is getting rid of it altogether.

In the segment Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy says, "We can't abandon coal. We have to find a way to keep it and use it in the future. And that means the ability to clean it up."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

A Los Angeles Trend Worth Following for Earth Day
Posted by Nathan Havey, Brave New Films on April 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM.

The City of Los Angeles set a goal to get 20% of its power from renewable sources by 2010. The program the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) put in place gives people the choice of whether the money they pay in electrical bills will go to fund coal power, or renewable energy.

The program is administered through the LADWP, and it allows consumers to sign up to get part or all of their power from renewable sources for an extra three cents per kilowatt-hour. So, if your electricity bill is $50 per month, you could get 20% renewable power for another three dollars, or 100% renewable power for $15 more per month.

In it’s 2007 annual report, the LADWP reported that more than 22,000 homes and apartments had signed up for the green power program for at least some of their power. That’s good, but it only amounts to about 6% of the city’s power. The 2008 numbers aren’t out yet, but we can count on a race against time to meet the goal of 20% by 2010. So if you are in LA, sign up and get coal off of your power bill - and your conscience. If you are not in LA, but have friends here, help us out and send this video around.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »