Uncategorized

Clinton appointee upholds destruction of Appalachia

Today the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, overturned a federal judge's 2007 ruling to require greater environmental review of permits for mountaintop removal in West Virginia.

The decision, while devastating for Appalachia's mountain communities and waterways, should be no shocker; this was the fourth time in eight years that the 4th Circuit Court has thrown out federal court rulings that sought to tighten mountaintop removal standards in West Virginia.

Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward, Jr. is closely following the story and its ramifications on his blog. The Associated Press also has the story.

The 2-1 majority opinion was written by Clinton-appointee Roger L. Gregory, the first African American justice to be named to the 4th Circuit Court. Gregory wrote:

In making this determination, we must first appreciate the statutory tightrope that the Corps walks in its permitting decisions. In passing the CWA, Congress aimed "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2000). But, in passing SMCRA, Congress sought to "strike a balance between protection of the environment and agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an essential source of energy." 30 U.S.C. § 1202(f)(2000).

As the dissenting voice, Judge M. Blane Michael from West Virginia concluded:

Today's decision will have far-reaching consequences for the environment of Appalachia. It is not disputed that the impact of filling valleys and headwater streams is irreversible or that headwater streams provide crucial ecosystem functions. Further, the cumulative effects of the permitted fill activities on local streams and watersheds are considerable. By failing to require the Corps to undertake a meaningful assessment of the functions of the aquatic resources being destroyed and by allowing the Corps to proceed instead with a one-to-one mitigation that takes no account of lost stream function, this court risks significant harm to the affected watersheds and water resources.

Is Obama up to the challenge on climate and the economy, or will he disappoint like Blair?

It already seems so long ago, when, like you, we anxious eco-Brits spent a tense few minutes on Jan. 20 deconstructing Obama's inauguration speech.

There was plenty to cheer: "The ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet." (Well spotted!) "Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control." (Bloody good point!) "We will restore science to its rightful place." (Yes! Stuff the creationist nutters!) "The success of our economy always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart." (Ooh! A coded death knell for growth-driven economics!)

And some food for thought: "Our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year." (Hmm. Not much then in the case of GM, Ford, et al?) "We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together." (Not much poetry in suburban light-rail systems, I guess, but can you at least do the roads last?) "We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars" (and trains!). "We will not apologize for our way of life." (That's fine, but don't let it happen again!)

By the end, our mood was rather chipper. Swept along by the euphoria, we felt the difference in ourselves. Even those who remembered the morning of May 2, 1997, when Tony Blair surfed a similar wave into power in the U.K. -- and the disappointment that seeped in over the ensuing years as he turned into Dubya's best mate and a safe pair of hands for the same old elites -- couldn't quite keep the spring out of our step.

Three weeks on, some observers here have already decided the honeymoon -- if there ever was one -- is over, and President Barack Obama, up to his neck in the proverbial, is going to need an awful lot of substance to go with his undeniable style if he is to avoid becoming America's Tony Blair.

Most economists agree on the economics of climate change mitigation

If you read only one article this week -- nay, this month -- make it this one from the increasingly indispensable Eric Pooley: "Surprise -- Economists Agree! A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change. So why is no one writing that?"

The point is that despite what you read in the media, there is in fact a fairly broad consensus among economists about the costs of climate change mitigation. Namely:

1. The costs of inaction are far higher than the costs of action, and
2. the costs of action are fairly modest -- between 0.5 and 1 percent of GDP by 2030, a far, far smaller impact than the current economic crisis is having.

This is why, in the words of economist Robert Stavins, "There is general consensus among economists and policy analysts that a market-based policy instrument targeting CO2 emissions ... should be a central element of any domestic climate policy."

Why is the media so bad at conveying this consensus? That's what Pooley investigated in more detail in his discussion paper [PDF], which Joe Romm covered here and which is also an absolute must-read. The reasons are basically twofold:

Our weekly look at the heroes and villains of the climate fight

Climate kudos this week go to House and Senate negotiators for cutting out billions of dollars in pork for coal and nuclear from the economic stimulus bill, while managing to protect most of the funding for good, green projects. For once, the legislative sausage-making process did not utterly disappoint.

We'd also like to give a shout-out this week to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for shelving the Bush administration's plan to poke drill bits into every available orifice. Now that's change we Ken believe in!

A third green thumbs-up goes to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for inaugurating the People's Garden on a plot of pavement at USDA headquarters this week, and announcing his goal of creating community gardens at every USDA facility. The gardens are going to "promote 'going green' concepts" like landscaping and building design to retain water, roof gardens for energy efficiency, native plantings, and conservation practices. You're kinda growing on us, Tom ...

... but you've still got some work to do. Vilsack also gets the finger for pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to require more ethanol in gasoline, just as a coalition of environmental groups unveiled a report detailing how the U.S. biofuel program "exacerbates global warming."

Another big honking finger goes to Dick Saslaw, the majority leader of the Virginia state Senate. Saslaw, a Democrat, this week cast the tie-breaking vote against a bill that would have required utilities to invest in energy-efficiency measures. The legislation would have saved Virginians up to $15 billion on their electric bills by the year 2025 and created thousands of jobs in the process, supporters said. Shocker: Saslaw has received $85,000 in campaign contributions from the coal-huggers at Dominion Power since 2004, more than any other legislator.

Got your own thoughts on who should get the climate finger this week? Put 'em in the comments section below.

Biggest California utility contracts for world’s biggest solar power deal

Wind power has come of age (see here). Concentrated solar thermal power is next. Southern California Edison has contracted with BrightSource Energy Inc. for seven projects totaling 1,300 megawatts of concentrated solar-thermal power. CSP is a core climate solution, probably the zero-carbon form of electricity with the most potential, since it can be easily integrated […]

Biggest California utility contracts for world’s biggest solar power deal

Wind power has come of age (see here). Concentrated solar thermal power is next. Southern California Edison has contracted with BrightSource Energy Inc. for seven projects totaling 1,300 megawatts of concentrated solar-thermal power. CSP is a core climate solution, probably the zero-carbon form of electricity with the most potential, since it can be easily integrated […]

The entire 'clean coal' effort could be fruitless

Part 1 noted that the U.S. Geological Survey's stunning December report found

The coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total).

Although the report didn't get much media attention, it was a shocker because the Gillette field, within Wyoming's Powder River Basin "is the most prolific coalfield in the United States" and in 2006 provided "over 37 percent of the Nation's total yearly production."

Now Clean Energy Action has issued a new report, Coal: Cheap and Abundant ... Or is it? that goes beyond the analysis in the USGS study and concludes:

It appears that rather than having a "200 year supply of coal," the United States has a much shorter planning horizon for moving beyond coalfired power plants. Depending on the resolution of geologic, economic, legal and transportation constraints facing future coal mine expansion, the planning horizon for moving beyond coal could be as short as 20-30 years.

A top priority of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the Obama administration must be a detailed mine-by-mine analysis to resolve the issue of the U.S. coal resource. The imminent reality of peak oil production should be clear to all by now (see here). If we are running short of coal, the urgency of jumpstarting the transition to a clean energy economy is all the greater -- and the possibility that coal with carbon capture and storage will be a major contributor to greenhouse gas reductions would be greatly diminished.

Clean Energy Action notes:

This weekend's NBA All-Star Game to be greenish

The NBA All-Star Game on Sunday will be the greenest yet -- perhaps not such a tough bar to reach, but still worth a note.

Greenish plans include, of course, carbon offsets. They also include PSAs about recycling, starring figures from the host team Phoenix Suns; lotsa recycling bins; and "sustainable" T-shirts for volunteers. Bigger-scale projects include construction of a local playground from post-consumer materials. The Suns themselves are also greening up their act, with plans to install solar panels at their arena later this year.

As we've seen before, Phoenix is surprisingly sustainable in its way, despite the whole water-sucking-city-in-a-desert thing. Hosting (and boasting about) a high-profile green sports event is another point in its favor, small though it be.

Is the U.S. ready for sane ethanol policy?

Imagine you're a policy maker with the power to commit federal cash and rules to a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fossil-fuel use.

You'd want to build in mechanisms to make sure your policies are working toward your goals and not having all sorts of negative unintended consequences ... right? 

Well, that's what a coalition of green NGOs -- Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Network for New Energy Choices, the Clean Air Task Force, and New York Public Interest Research Group -- are calling for with regard to the nation's biofuel policy.

They charge that  the U.S. biofuel program actually "exacerbates global warming" because of greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers and the conversion of grasslands and rainforest to cropland. Further, the mass production of monocropped fuel feedstocks like corn, soy, and palm degrades soils, increases water pollution, drives out biodiversity, and endangers the food security of vulnerable populations. In the process of creating these lamentable side effects, biofuels are offsetting a relatively small amount of conventional fuel use -- and are grabbing the lion's share of federal support for alternative energy. In short, biofuels have been an abject failure.

Whether or not you agree with their analysis, it's hard to see how any sane person could object to their policy proposals, which I've pasted below the fold. Their suggestions amount to safeguards to ensure that federal biofuel policies actually reduce greenhouse gas and don't contribute to a food crisis.

Under the previous regime, such standards seemed too high. Few assumed that President Bush promoted biofuels because he thought they might reduce gas consumption (never much of a priority) or mitigate climate change (which he never took seriously).

After all, as Dennis Keeney, emeritus professor of agronomy at Iowa State, recently wrote, "money, not science, has driven ethanol fuel policy." Keeney's assessment applies to U.S. biofuel policy since its inception under Jimmy Carter.

Will Obama do better? Last I checked, the only biofuel-related tweak the new administration was considering involved trying to get more etahnol into the fuel supply. But if the president does want to align biofuel policy with his environmental and social goals, he should heed the policy proposals cobbled together by the Environmental Working Group and its peers, pasted below.

The benefits of a carbon-free vacation

This is my cousin Tom's idea of a vacation:

He takes a bus across the Golden Gate Bridge to Rodeo Beach. He's wearing hiking boots, jeans, and a windbreaker. He carries a small backpack, volume of John Muir inside. And a sandwich. He hikes up the Coastal trail to Wolf Ridge, bundled against the morning fog, then down to Tennessee beach. Seagulls caw and whirl. Sandwich, book, nap on the beach to the sound of crashing waves on California's north coast. Stretches, shakes the sand out of his hair, hikes over the ridge to Pirate's Cove, then down to Muir Beach. Checks into the Pelican Inn. Has a cold Lagunitas Lager and reads a few pages of Muir, soaking in the clawfoot tub. Down to dinner, then a nightcap with locals. Really, Jerry Garcia used to play here? And you filled in on harmonica? Nip of night air and impossible stars before turning in. And that's just day one. There are three more days until Olema.

A carbon-free vacation sounds pretty good, don't it? He's got tips, trail maps, and community here.