Shale Oil Development, robbing Peter to pay Paul

I read this article in the Los Angeles Times and it really hit set me off in several different directions.

Dollar signs fill the heads of oil companies and politicians, while visions of ecological disaster fill the minds of everyone else.

Oil company execs say it would be ‘unconscionable to forgo exploiting oil shale's potential’ while dismissing the ‘unconscionable’ destruction of land and the ‘unconscionable’ pollution and depletion of water resources.

Shell Oil spouts sound bites like ‘safely and responsibly’ ‘getting at’ this hydrocarbon resource simply because it is considered a ‘huge’ resource while at the same time acknowledging that the technology required to ‘get at’ this shale oil is unproven. What is known about this technology is that it would take 10 barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil and that could possibly use all of the remaining water in upper Colorado River Basin.

Where does this leave ranchers who depend on the underground aquifers for their crops and livestock, or the millions of people who would like to drink, bathe and swim in clean water downstream?

Taxpayer Rip Off
It seems congress has already decided how to best use our ‘public lands’. For oil shale development. Despite the proof of past ecological destruction, congress continues to bend to oil company pressure instead of taking the lead to develop renewable energy.

More proof of this decision comes from this industry being included in the $700-billion government bailout package. I was under the impression that the bailout was for financial institutions. Seems we were lied to again. I understand that we didn’t have any say in the first place on how this money was to be spent, but we were told the money was necessary to prevent Wall Street investment firms and banking institutions from going under not for more oil company tax breaks and investment.

No wonder Paulson refuses to allow disclosure on how this money is being spent. Bush and his cronies continue to ride the gravy train of taxpayer handouts.

Groundwater nightmare
It is not a matter of ‘if’ groundwater will be contaminated by this process, but by how much. No matter what ‘assurances’ oil companies give us that they will be ‘safe’ and ‘responsible’, their past and current performance shows they cannot be trusted.

Yet congress and the oil companies want to push forward into the darkness knowing full well they will add to the ecological mess that they have helped bring to our lands, air and water.

As the article says ‘Oil shale is a poor excuse for a fuel’. Why should we destroy even more landscape to further enrich a handful of men while taking away so much from so many?

‘Free Recycling’ Plan Falls Short of Environmental Responsibility

Oregon lawmakers passed legislation last year that allows desktop computers, monitors, laptops and televisions to be disposed of for free beginning January 1. 2009.

The plan calls for any company that makes computers and TVs sold in Oregon must register with the state and pay a fee, generating an anticipated $350,000 to $400,000 in revenue.

The program needs to go one step further by providing an incentive to reuse still-working equipment.

Recycling consumes 20 times as much energy as reuse.

In keeping with the 3R’s of environment awareness: Recycle-Reduce-Reuse, sorting out reusable still-working computers, cell phones, radios and other devices, and then refurbishing and reselling them could make a deep cut in our waste stream and create employment opportunites.

Much of what could be recycled is thoughtlessly tossed in the trash can and what is placed in our recycle bins just gets dumped into places other than the landfill. Most of these ‘other’ dump sites tend to be foreign countries where hazardous materials are not regulated as they are in the U.S. Another dump site is the ocean where massive ‘plastic islands’ are forming. Colorful bits of plastic are being ingested by sea life which choke them to death.

However, there is evidence that we are becoming more environmentally aware but we need to do more. The complete 3 R program (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) needs to be employed and meticulously followed in order for us to truly cut down on the amount of waste we generate. It is not a matter of running out of landfill space. That mindset is the wrong way to view the problem. We need to keep useable items out of the landfill by adopting a ‘reuse before recycle’ mindset.

Using items for other than their intended first use, for example plastic bags we bring our groceries home in could then be used as trash can liners.

There are websites where you can offer your items for free to others who can make use of them. One such service is Free Mesa. If you're in Australia, a great new service is E-Cycled.

Glass, cardboard and paper we are aware of but you don’t have to have a garden to compost. Compost is a great nutrient source for your lawn. You can actually cut down on the amount of chemicals you dump on your lawn to make it greener plus it works to control damaging insect populations.

Visit www.reduce.org to learn how simple it is to reduce waste in your daily routine.

Manufacturers are making a great impact on reducing packaging of the products we consumers buy, but the real driving force to get our waste under control is left to the consumer. We need to stop throwing away items that still have life in them. We need to shun the idea that we just have to have the latest gadget to replace the one we bought last year that still has a lot of useful life left.

Another couple of things that would go a long way to make us a truly environmentally aware society would be an incentive program to get companies to recycle and refurbish products and a reliable national directory of businesses that sells those products.

Further reading:
Book Mooch
Why Reuse Beats Recycling
Recycling Guide
Floating toxic plastic garbage island twice the size of Texas

Progress Toward Addressing Climate Change Fails Again

Are we really committed to combating climate change? We talk a great game. We seem to recognize that something must be done. But when it comes right down to it, there is very little action.

Industrialized and developing countries get together periodically to discuss the problem and toss around ideas on how to deal with it, but in the end any solution is so watered down that it becomes ineffective.

Money is made available for developing countries, through a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, but everyone agrees that the amount raised ($80 million) is far below what is needed to build the necessary flood defenses, to develop much needed drought-resistant crops, and to produce storm warnings. This fund represents the human side of climate change, something that tends to be lost when discussing how much pollution should be cut back by industrialized nations.

The biggest polluters are of course industrialized nations, such as China, India, America, and Japan, who raise the loudest objections to pay more into the fund and consistently fail to reach agreements to make deeper emissions cuts. Understandably, developing nations are disappointed at their position and stubbornness. Everyone is paving a road of good intentions, but good intentions never get anything done.

U.N. projections are that poor nations will need tens of billions of dollars a year by 2030 to cope with climate change. Poland spent 24 million euros ($31.84 million) just to host the Dec. 1-12 conference and the only concrete result was to streamline access by developing nations to the fund while rich nations secured controls to ensure cash was properly spent.

This summit represented the halfway point between Bali in 2007 and Copenhagen in 2009. It was scheduled to reach an agreement to expand the Kyoto Protocol committing industrialized countries to make deeper emission cuts in the short-term and to produce a longer-term agreement encompassing all countries. No discernable progress was made.

EU leaders in Brussels agreed a pact on Friday to cut greenhouse gases by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 -- after making costly concessions to east European countries. Is this going to be another disappointment of more talk and less action?

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions was never expected to be cheap or easy. It requires drastic changes in lifestyles for all of us, rich and poor alike. Everyone knew this before agreeing to get together to create an action plan to overcome our past mistakes. Time passes, pollution levels remain unaltered. The time has come to actually commit to a plan. Industrialized nations, being the biggest polluters should bear the largest financial burden to ease the rest of world of their disproportionate suffering.

This could be our last best chance to make a difference. Let’s make it effective.

Another Lesson in Economics

Airfares are dropping. Gasoline prices are dropping. Instead of thanking your lucky stars for answered prayers, thank yourselves.

These happy reversals of long-standing trends are the result of a very basic factor of economics: lack of demand.

When gas prices began rising sharply we parked our vehicles and took up the mantra of environmentalist everywhere by riding public transportation. Let’s don’t blow it by returning to our old glutinous ways.

I would like to be altruistic and say we did it to save the environment, but no, we did it to save our pocketbooks.

Whatever the reason, we need to improve this trend and take the environmental reasons to heart. And if we continue to save a little money in the process, so much the better.

Of course now airlines are complaining about the lack of revenue, but please keep in mind they are crying for themselves, not for us and definitely not for the environment.

So, while we are still high on this happy news, can home mortgage rates be far behind?

EPA Should be Overhauled

The subject of coal was brought up during the recent presidential campaign cycle and President-elect Obama as well as Senator John McCain made some allusions to keeping this 19th century fossil fuel industry alive. Truth of the matter is we continue to need the energy this sooty polluting energy source provides. However, it is not the only option and the EPA is doing nothing to force this industry into cleaning up its act.

Dozens of new coal plants across the country have been put on hold in response to EPA allowing coal-burning power plants to build without addressing global warming. The coal industry’s response is to counter-sue in an attempt to prevent states from acting to fight global warming. This is just incredulous.

During the presidential campaign, the coal industry launched a $35 million ad campaign to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change. The Australian Coal Industry spent millions to launch an offense to persuade the public that it is not a climate change villain. These advertising campaigns, quite simply, mask the harmful and polluting nature of coal-fired power plants. The public knows these advertising claims are lies. And yet they continue to try to greenwash the truth hoping the public will buy into their self-delusional pipedream.

The money spent on these greenwashing campaigns would be better spent in developing renewable energy sources. If the coal and oil industries would redirect their efforts and invest their very sizable fortunes into developing alternative energy the entire planet could get there sooner and everyone would be healthier for it. Money spent on new coal plants could also help develop wind and/or solar farms, geothermal plants or biomass development. Why fight the inevitable?

It disturbs and saddens me greatly that the EPA could issue such permits to an industry that has historically been the single most visible polluter of our environment without requiring controls on carbon dioxide. As far as I am concerned it is an indictment against the EPA. For what are they good for if they are not going to take appropriate measures to protect our environment and our health? Their action is the converse to their very name.

I can understand why the coal industry wants to do what it can to maintain its ‘business as usual’. It is the very mindset of human behavior to continue on the course that it knows best. But when that course is proving to be harmful to the health of the general population, not to mention the very environment in which we all live, then that course needs to be altered.

We as a nation have understood for decades that polluting our water, air and land cannot be tolerated. The federal government created an entire agency to protect the environment because we all know that in our endeavors to become a powerful nation we were fouling our own nests. The EPA has been given tools to combat polluters, the Clean Air Act being most notable, but continue down a path that all but proves they are in bed with these very polluters.

Other recent decisions have indicated that EPA Director Brown is, at best, sympathetic to industry polluters, and, at worst, being bought off by them. The EPA has obviously lost its mandate to protect us and therefore should be overhauled.

Finally, we will have a president that will actually listen to scientists and view them as something more than just court-jesters. The EPA better sit up and take notice.

I know the coal industry and all its related support groups employ a lot of people, but coal truly is not the answer. It has polluted our world for far too long. Alternative methods need to be employed, sooner rather than later. Monetary factors cannot dictate our future health. The only parties arguing the permits should be upheld are those who have a financial interest in having these coal-power plants be built (American Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers). This sends a very loud message that they value profit over our health.

The Supreme Court will go no further than to tell the EPA that they must decide whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare. But we already have tons of proof concerning the negative effects of excess carbon dioxide and where it comes from. Let us stop wasting money on more studies. Let us stop spinning our wheels trying to side-step the obvious, albeit expensive, solution. Let us develop renewable energy sources and get these industries up and running now.

Further reading:
CoalisnottheAnswer.org
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Greenwashing Dirty Coal
EPA Decision on Standards for Greenhouse Gases Draw Criticism
Is Bush interfering with EPA decision?
EPA Car Emissions Ruling Contested on Hill