The ongoing debate over hydraulic fracturing in New York focuses on the Marcellus shale, a geological formation that runs from New York through Pennsylvania to West Virginia. Energy companies are salivating at the prospect of fracking in the state. But no matter what New York Gov. Cuomo decides on the existing fracking ban, there's one place that no one will be able to frack: Marcellus, N.Y. -- the town for which the formation is named.
The Marcellus town board voted unanimously Monday to ban the exploration and production of natural gas and petroleum in the town.
By a 5-0 vote, the board passed a local law amending its zoning codes to prevent “ all exploration and production of natural gas and petroleum in the town,” Supervisor Daniel J. Ross said this morning. …
At some point, the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline will be resolved. Either President Obama will allow the State Department to approve it, or he will not. Either it will be built, or it won't. One of these days we'll finally find out the state of Schrodinger's poor little cat.
In the meantime, pipeline opponents and advocates are battling furiously for attention. Press releases and events and reports and letters and protests and panels and all of the strained tools of our semi-evolved persuasion society are thrown around in Washington, D.C., hoping to finally crack open that little cat's box.
Here's what has been thrown around today:
Oil Change International (working with the Natural Resources Defense Council) unveiled a new study, suggesting that petroleum coke, a solid byproduct of the tar-sands oil extraction process, is worse for the climate than coal. And since that petcoke (as it is known) will be sold and burned if tar-sands production is ginned up following approval of Keystone XL, its climate effects should be considered in the government's environmental impact statement on Keystone. The Washington Post reports:
“The proven tar sands reserves of Canada will yield roughly 5 billion tons of petcoke -- enough to fully fuel 111 U.S. coal plants to 2050,” the report says. It asserts that counting petroleum coke use would raise estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands development by 13 percent beyond earlier estimates used by the State Department.
The report said that “the climate impact of oil production is being consistently undercounted.” It calculated that petroleum coke byproduct from oil carried by the Keystone XL alone would be enough to fuel five coal plants and emit 16.6 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.
Counterpoint from the American Petroleum Institute's Jack Gerard: The pipeline "is clearly is in the national interest, and that’s the only decision the president needs to make." Considerations of carbon output are "tangential."
Despite how demure its citizens are, Canada sometimes feels a little insecure about always being promoted as second-fiddle to the United States. There is a famous T-shirt which suggests that Canada is America's hat; while this is largely true, Canada yearns to occasionally suggest that the U.S. is Canada's boxer shorts. (Your Florida is hanging out.)
In one thing, though, Canada emerges victorious: garbage production. From the CBC:
The Conference Board of Canada gave Canada a C grade on Thursday and ranked it in 15th place among 17 developed nations studied across a host of environmental-efficiency metrics. …
While Canada earned a few A grades in categories such as water quality, endangered species and the use of forest resources, overall the country scored a D average. …
Canada fared dismally in terms of the amount of waste we produce. In 2009 (the data year on which the study was based), Canada produced 777 kilgrams of garbage per citizen. Across all 17 countries studied, the average was only 578 kg produced.
One source of contention during the House's aggrieved, extensive debate over providing aid to Hurricane Sandy victims was how much money should be spent on preventative measures. To what extent, that is, should the government spend money now in order to save money in the future -- spend money bolstering coastlines in New York and New Jersey so that the next time a big storm comes through, damage is less severe. The preferred answer of the House Republican majority was: zero dollars.
The GOP's refusal to spend on prevention is looking all the more shortsighted in light of a new assessment by the Army Corps of Engineers of the strength of the nation's levees. What the Corps is finding is not encouraging, raising the specter of another massive infrastructural need. From the Associated Press:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has yet to issue ratings for a little more than 40 percent of the 2,487 structures, which protect about 10 million people. Of those it has rated, however, 326 levees covering more than 2,000 miles were found in urgent need of repair.
The problems are myriad: earthen walls weakened by trees, shrubs and burrowing animal holes; houses built dangerously close to or even on top of levees; decayed pipes and pumping stations.
Yesterday, the state of Washington got itself a new governor. During the campaign, environmental advocates were bullish on Jay Inslee's prospects as a leader on green issues; our Lisa Hymas suggested he might be the greenest governor in the country.
Inslee didn't waste much time in trying to meet those expectations. From the Olympian:
Inslee, a Democrat with an eye to putting Washington ahead of other states on green jobs and responding to climate change, revisited those themes in his [inaugural] address, which also touch on school funding, the economy and other themes. He also spoke of bringing “innovation” to the culture of Olympia.
Hoping to lend his message urgency, Inslee’s speech was titled, “The World Will Not Wait.” …
Notably, Inslee said: “There is no challenge greater for Washington, with more opportunity for job growth, and more suited to our particular brand of genius and ingenuity, than leading the world’s clean energy economy. It is clear to me that we are the right state, at the right time, with the right people, and it’s also clear to me that we face grave and immediate danger if we fail to act.”
When Fort Worth resident Steve Lipsky discovered that his tap water was bubbling, the EPA sprang into action. Lipsky lived near natural gas wells being drilled by Range Resources, the likely source of the methane flowing into his water supply. From the Associated Press:
The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December 2010, because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of bubbling water.
Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys, were in danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered Range Resources to take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected homeowners with safe water.
The agency issued a 2010 emergency order in an effort to address the problem. And then, without the problem being fixed, it pulled that order. Why?
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked an independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples taken from 32 water wells. In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing that the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range Resources' nearby drilling operation.
A bitterly contested wind farm proposed for Goodhue County [Minnesota] got the go-ahead Wednesday to pursue a permit that would allow it to legally kill or injure eagles, in what could be the first case of federal authorities issuing a license to kill the protected national symbol.
The 48-turbine project would kill at most eight to 15 eagles a year, a number that would not harm the local population, federal officials said in a letter to state regulators. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said its estimate does not include possible strategies to reduce the number of eagles killed and, that if a permit is eventually granted, the goal would be a much lower figure.
At most eight to 15! Could be as few as six chopped-up bits of Americana!
Bird deaths are one of the most common arguments used by opponents of wind energy. Case in point:
Wind turbines are not only killing millions of birds, they are killing the finances & environment of many countries & communities.
When the EPA announced stricter limits on soot emissions last year, the health benefits were immediately apparent. Less soot -- that is, tiny particles that result from burning fossil fuels -- means fewer heart attacks, less asthma, longer lifespans. On this basis alone, the new standard is a beneficial move.
As it turns out, the move could also play a significant role in countering global warming. Researchers have determined that black carbon (soot) contributes twice as much to global warming as previously understood. From the University of Washington:
Black carbon’s role in climate is complex. Dark particles in the air work to shade the Earth’s surface while warming the atmosphere. Black carbon that settles on the surface of snow and ice darkens the surface to absorb more sunlight and increase melting. Finally, soot particles influence cloud formation in ways that can have either a cooling or warming impact.
Last year, another team of researchers proposed a novel way to curb Arctic ice melt: halting airplane trips over the region. The black carbon emitted by trans-Arctic flights lingers in the atmosphere in the area longer than it does elsewhere.
The movement is a response to hundreds of years of environmental rape and pillage by European settlers, who have generally shown themselves to be shitty stewards of this land (OK, "shitty" is generous). So why now?
It’s not a Native thing or a white thing, it’s an Indigenous worldview thing. It’s a “protect the Earth” thing. For those transfixed on race, you’re missing the point. The Idle No More Movement simply wants kids of all colors and ethnicities to have clean drinking water.
By 2020, the plan is to build a total of 143 wind turbines on platforms 16 kilometres off the coast of Fukushima, home to the stricken Daiichi nuclear reactor that hit the headlines in March 2011 when it was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.
The wind farm, which will generate 1 gigawatt of power once completed, is part of a national plan to increase renewable energy resources following the post-tsunami shutdown of the nation's 54 nuclear reactors. Only two have since come back online.
The project is part of Fukushima's plan to become completely energy self-sufficient by 2040, using renewable sources alone. The prefecture is also set to build the country's biggest solar park.