Wisconsin's New Auburn school district is upgrading air filters to prevent sand fragments from floating in from nearby frac-sand mines and getting into children's lungs.
Much of the sand in the state is perfectly suited to be mixed with water and chemicals and used in fracking operations, where it holds open fractures in shale and allows gas and oil to escape. That's fueling a $1-billion-a-year sand-mining boom, which is bringing notable environmental and health risks to the state.
Fossil fuel companies stand to miss out on $9 trillion to $12 trillion in profits by the end of the century if carbon emissions are taxed at a high enough level to meet international climate goals. Cry us a river, right?
That's because demand for coal, oil, and natural gas would fall as prices are pushed higher, leading companies to leave vast volumes in the ground, according to a new study.
On the flip side, how much revenue would be generated through taxes or the sale of carbon allowances? The study, published in the journal Climatic Change, found the fossil fuels that are mined and burned would generate carbon-tax or carbon-auction revenues of $21 trillion to $32 trillion during the same period. That means a net economic benefit of as much as $20 trillion.
"Implementing ambitious climate targets would certainly scale down fossil fuel consumption, so with reduced demand their prices would drop," said Nico Bauer, lead author of the study and a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “The resulting profit loss would be overcompensated by revenues from auctioning emissions permits or taxing CO2."
After crunching numbers with an energy-economy-climate model, Bauer said the researchers were surprised that "revenues from emissions pricing were found to be at least twice as high [as] the profit losses we estimate for the owners of fossil fuels.”
Wastewater is a huge problem for the fracking industry. It's produced when the water that frackers pump into the ground returns to the surface -- contaminated with fracking chemicals and also with toxic substances that naturally linger deep beneath the soil. Some of the wastewater is pumped back into the ground, but that can trigger earthquakes. Some of the wastewater is treated like sewage and then poured back into rivers and streams, but that pollutes waterways with the hitherto-subterranean radiation.
The industry wants to be allowed to ship its wastewater away from frack sites to be dumped, stored, or recycled in far-off locations, even in other states. And the Coast Guard is giving the public a month to comment on its proposal to allow this precarious practice to begin. From PublicSource, a news outlet in the heavily fracked state of Pennsylvania:
The Coast Guard began studying the issue nearly two years ago at the request of its Pittsburgh office, which had inquiries from companies transporting Marcellus Shale wastewater.
If the policy is approved, companies can ship the wastewater in bulk on barges on the nation’s 12,000 miles of waterways, a much cheaper mode than trucks or rail. ...
It's an off-year election so there are no congressional races today, but some state and local battles are of immense interest to environmentalists. Here's a quick rundown of the key green fights to keep an eye on:
Virginia governor's race
In the gubernatorial election in Virginia, the leading candidates are virtual caricatures of their political parties when it comes to climate change. The Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, is concerned about global warming and supports renewable energy. He also used to run a (now quite troubled) greentech company. The Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, is a climate skeptic who's been trying to score political points by whining about the Democrats' "war on coal." Cuccinelli previously led a witch hunt of a prominent climate scientist, Michael Mann, trying, unsuccessfully, to force the University of Virginia to turn over emails and other records related to Mann's time at the school. (You'll never guess who Mann has been supporting in the governor's race.)
President Obama called out Cuccinelli's climate illiteracy while stumping on Monday for the Democrat. “It doesn’t create jobs when you go after scientists, and you try to offer your own alternative theories of how things work and engage in litigation around stuff that isn't political,” Obama said. “It has to do with what's true. It has to do with facts. You don’t argue with facts.”
Virginia, a coal-producing state, used to be solidly red, but in recent years it's turned purple. The state's voters went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and they look very likely to lean blue in this race. McAuliffe is firmly up in the polls.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Association has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into advertisements trying to convince residents of four Colorado cities to vote against ballot measures that would ban or suspend fracking.
The coal industry has a decades-old friendship with Johns Hopkins University, but now that cozy relationship is being torn apart by the scrutiny of investigative journalists.
When employees filed for black-lung-related benefits, coal companies paid the Baltimore-based university handsome sums to screen the claimants for the disease. After reviewing chest X-rays, the university's scientists almost always concluded that the scans did not show black lung -- a conclusion which often overwhelmed any other medical opinion in the case.
(Black lung disease, or coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, kills an estimated 1,500 former coal miners every year. It is a painful and preventable ailment contracted by inhaling coal dust.)
For 40 years, these doctors have been perhaps the most sought-after and prolific readers of chest films on behalf of coal companies seeking to defeat miners’ claims. Their fees flow directly to the university, which supports their work, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and ABC News has found. According to the university, none of the money goes directly to the doctors.
The Forest Service can't keep up with the rising costs of fighting wildfires in a warming world.
As climate change dries out fire-prone forests, the frequency and intensity of forest fires are increasing. Between 1985 and 1999, the federal government never spent more than $1 billion on fire suppression in a single year, according to this National Interagency Fire Center table [PDF] of firefighting costs since the mid-'80s.
But in 2000, the federal bill came in at $1.4 billion, and then it continued to increase, exceeding $1.5 billion five times from 2006 to 2012. And the number of acres of forest burned each year has also been rising.
This year has been a nightmare fire season in the American West: The U.S. Forest Service, which incurs most of the nation's forest-fire suppression costs, ran out of firefighting money. Again. From E&E Publishing:
Lightning bolts rained across the West in August, sparking hundreds of wildfires in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, and pushing the cash-strapped Forest Service to the brink.
The service had at that point spent $967 million battling wildfires that had torched more than 3.4 million acres in 2013. Its emergency fund exhausted, it had about $50 million left -- enough for about half a week.
That's become business as usual for an agency that's run out of wildfire suppression funds seven times in the last 12 years. So Chief Tom Tidwell did what his predecessors had done: He raided the agency's nonfire accounts to make up the shortfall. ...
How many Tea Partiers does it take to swap out an incandescent lightbulb?
Nine percent of them. The rest don't believe in energy-efficient alternatives because they haven't figured out that humans are warming the globe. (Also, they're pissed about FASCIST GOVERNMENT PLOTS to control their sources of illumination.)
A Pew Research Center poll of 1,504 American adults last month found that about two-thirds of Americans understand that the climate is changing. That figure has been more-or-less unchanged during the last few years of Pew polling on the subject.
More Democrats than Republicans are clued in to the reality of climate change -- 84 percent of Democrats agreed that there is "solid evidence the Earth is warming," compared with 61 percent of Republicans. But within the Republican Party, there's about as much agreement over climate science as there was over the Tea Party-fueled federal government shutdown.
James Hansen and three other PhD-wielding climate scientists published an open letter Sunday calling on the world to ramp up the development and deployment of "safer nuclear energy systems" to help slow climate change. Nuclear power is a notoriously prickly subject for environmentalists: It promises bountiful zero-carbon power in an era of profligate fossil-fuel burning, currently meeting 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs. But it produces copious amounts of radioactive waste, and it threatens communities living nearby (you may recall Fukushima in Japan, Chernobyl in the former USSR, and Middletown, Pa., near the Three Mile Island nuclear reactors).
In the letter, which is addressed to "those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power," the quartet argue that renewables "like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy," but that such renewables "cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires."
OK, so last year was a nightmare for the officials at Shell charged with figuring out how to plunder the Arctic for oil. Shell gets that. Both of the company's exploratory oil rigs in the region were damaged in accidents, wells were abandoned, a vice president lost his job, and the Obama administration prevented the company from resuming its Arctic work this year.
But Shell is delighted to announce that its problems have largely been fixed and it's ready to return to some American-controlled Arctic waters next year. From E&E Publishing:
In a teleconference with energy analysts, Shell Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said the company will submit an exploration plan for the Chukchi "in the next few weeks." Shell officials added, however, that the company has not yet reached a final decision on drilling.
If you are anything like us, you're waiting for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to publish the next installment of its epically important assessment report with bated breath. Rejoice: The waiting is over, thanks to an intrepid sneak who leaked the doc ahead of schedule.
The latest leak gives us a peek at the second quarter of the most recent assessment (it's the fifth assessment report since 1990 by the world's leading climate change authority). The document, scheduled to be unveiled in March, deals with the severity of climate impacts and worldwide efforts to adapt to it.
Now, technically we're supposed to wait until the final draft is officially published before sharing its contents with you climate-news-hungry readers. But we just can't resist: Here is our summary of some of the upcoming report's key findings, accompanied by a boilerplate warning: Despite being marked "final draft," these conclusions could change between now and the official release in March.