Latest Articles

Landrieu serves up monologue on oil during DOE confirmation hearing

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) made two of the more aggressively pro-drilling arguments during Tuesday's confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary-nominee Steven Chu. Neither was totally related to Chu's testimony, but both were, er, colorful.

First, Landrieu disputed Chu's citation of the fact that the United States contains only three percent of the world's oil supply, arguing that she believes there is more oil available domestically:

I listened with interest to your comments to Senator Murkowski about the known inventory in the United States of oil and gas and just wanted to point out that the emphasis is on the word known because we believe, many of us, that there are great resources that have yet to be discovered based on the fact that there's never been a comprehensive technology-driven inventory taken of oil and gas resources.

So one of the things that our chairman has been leading the effort and to some degree of success with my support and others, has been to push the United States government on behalf of the taxpayers who might be interested to actually know how much oil and gas they have. And so with so much off limit in the past and with limited access to just look, I would just urge you to be careful about the comment about four percent. It is true. We have four percent of the known reserves, but there is great evidence to suggest that there are lots of reserves that are unknown.

Her second remark pertained to pirates:

EPA nominee to be asked about regulating perchlorate in drinking water

This story originally appeared on ProPublica.org. It was written by Joaquin Sapien.

-----

In the latest volley of a years-long battle involving the Environmental Protection Agency, the military and the White House, the EPA announced last week that it will delay its decision on whether to set a drinking water standard for perchlorate, a chemical in rocket fuel that has been found at harmful levels in drinking water across the country. The announcement that the EPA won't act until it receives advice from the National Academy of Sciences puts the contentious decision onto the already-heavy regulatory agenda awaiting Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to head the EPA.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, has promised to raise the issue of perchlorate at Jackson's confirmation hearing tomorrow. Boxer has called the EPA's decision "to walk away from this problem and shrug off this danger...immoral."

The EPA estimates that as many as 16.6 million Americans are exposed to unsafe levels of perchlorate, which studies link to thyroid damage that can slow brain development in children.

Jackson, former head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, is no stranger to the perchlorate controversy. New Jersey was urged to regulate [PDF] the chemical in October 2005 by a panel of state scientists, environmental activists and industry leaders. But three years later, the DEP still hasn't completed a draft of the rule.

The panel made its recommendation after a statewide study revealed that unsafe levels of perchlorate had been found in six of 123 public water systems the state sampled in 2004. Each of those water systems serves more than 10,000 people [ PDF, p. 41].

Jackson's predecessor, Bradley Campbell, promised to propose a perchlorate standard for drinking water by Jan. 31, 2006. But when Jackson moved from assistant commissioner to commissioner in February 2006, that deadline had passed. Standards were still being discussed last month, when Jackson left the DEP to become chief of staff for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

New Jersey DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura said the three years it has taken the DEP to develop a perchlorate regulation is not "atypical" and that the rule is now being reviewed by DEP's legal department and by the state's attorney general.

Newt Gingrich is an idiot

This short video should utterly discredit Newt Gingrich:

Then again, if nothing has discredited this dimwit yet, it's hard to see what could.

A review of natural and organic lip balms

When it comes to lip balms, I have a long and sordid history. It reaches back to the early 1980s when, as a young and curious grade-schooler, I would sneak into my sister’s bedroom to absorb what it meant to be old and glamorous. She, you see, was in high school — an unthinkably advanced […]

A photo tour of the green concepts and cars from North American Int'l Auto Show

The North American International Auto Show opened in Detroit with a bang. Literally. Apparently, the Chrysler Pentastar fell from the ceiling and startled a cluster of journalists as well as billionaire investor Wilbur Ross and his entourage. No one was hurt, but the portentous crash may be more than symbolic for the American auto industry if their bets on electric and hybrid vehicles fail to deliver, or if China's BYD motors beats them to the punch with their plug-in F3DM.

Though subdued -- Chrysler left the steer back at the ranch this year -- the more "rational" Detroit Auto Show saw more hybrid and electric vehicles debuts than first-generation Prius-owners could have possibly imagined 10 years-ago. The Chrysler Circuit, Lexus HS 250h, third-generation Toyota Prius, new Honda Insight, Fisker Karma S, Lincoln Concept C, BMW Concept-7, and the smart ed -- which will be powered by Tesla batteries -- comprise just a smattering of the electric and hybrid concepts and production models that will start to roll off respective assembly lines by the end of this year.

Check out the photo slideshow from Detroit below. To see the photo captions, click to enlarge and then press "show info" in the flickr slideshow.

Join the local movement with Grist

If you call Seattle home, we've got news for you ...

First things first: Howdy, neighbor! Grist is based in Seattle, too. Sure, we've got our political reporter in D.C. and an organic farmer in N.C., but most of us live and work -- and try to be as green as we can be -- within spitting distance of the Space Needle (relatively speaking, that is).

That's why we've launched Grist Local: Seattle, a weekly email featuring event listings, sustainable business profiles, and other news about the green scene in the Emerald City. You can get it zapped straight to your inbox every Wednesday for the low, low price of free! (And worth every penny.)

In fact, if you sign up now, you'll get your very first Grist Local email bright and early tomorrow (fresh off the presses). Here's a sneak peak:

Does America have the food system that we deserve?

McDonald's is on a roll. Says the NYT:

Six years into a rebound spawned by more appealing food and a less aggressive expansion, McDonald's seems to have won over some of its most hardened skeptics.

The chain has managed to sustain its momentum even as the economy and the restaurant industry as a whole are struggling. Month after month, McDonald's has surprised analysts by posting stronger-than-expected sales in the United States and abroad.

I've been won over all right. Won over to the argument that changing food policy in this country is a quixotic proposition. The article presents as progress that McDonald's responded to flattening beef consumption by going, quoth one executive, "at chicken hard."

Firstly, um, ew? And secondly, learning that McDonald's now sells more chicken than beef worldwide doesn't quite feel like the revolution is right around the corner.

Renewable energy industries lobby for more flexible tax credits

Renewable energy advocates are enthused by Barack Obama's call to double the production of clean, domestic energy and create three million jobs in the sector, but they don't think he'll be able to pull it off unless he backs two changes to the tax code -- changes they say will help spur millions more jobs in the wind and solar industries.

Right now, the tax credits for solar and wind energy (yes, the much-beleaguered credits that were finally slipped into the October bailout of the financial markets) are not refundable -- that is to say, a producer only gets the money back if it makes a profit. Problem is, given the economic downturn, not many renewable energy companies are making money. That means the tax credits aren't helping them. The solar and wind industries would like the renewable tax credits to become refundable, which would offer rebates even to companies that aren't making money.

Obama has said his stimulus plan would create nearly half a million jobs through clean energy investments, but neither the investors nor the lenders who would normally provide the upfront funding for start-up renewable projects are feeling confident enough to do so right now. It also doesn't help that some major financial backers of renewable projects -- like Lehman Brothers -- have gone under in recent months.

"Lehman goes away, and many other banks have suffered major losses because of the sub-prime crisis, and because they're suffering these huge losses they don't have much tax liability," Chris O'Brien, head of market development and government relations for North America at the Swiss company Oerlikon Solar, told Grist. "They don't need more losses, so their appetite for investing in solar projects has gone way down at a point in time where the interest in and the need for tax equity has gone way up."

Another idea floating around the Hill is for the stimulus plan to put $10 billion into a "National Clean Energy Lending Authority" that could lend to renewable projects and help support homeowners who want to retrofit. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) wrote a letter to Obama this week asking him to support something like this. "The current financial crisis has not only thrown us into recession, it has significantly derailed or killed off virtually every alternative energy project in the pipeline, making renewable energy yet another victim of the economic fallout," they wrote.

Senators prod DOE pick Chu for his thoughts on various energy sources

Barack Obama's pick to head the Energy Department, Steven Chu, got his turn in the confirmation spotlight this morning, with senators asking him to clarify some of his previous statements on contentious energy issues like coal and nuclear power.

The hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was, for the most part, amiable, with the lawmakers warmly welcoming the Nobel Laureate physicist. But when the subject turned to Chu's previous assertion that "Coal is my worst nightmare," some coal-state senators got a little touchy. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) inquired directly about the remark that's been "ricocheting around the internet," while others asked more in-depth questions about what coal-related policies Chu supports.

By equating coal to a nightmare, Chu said his point was, "If the world continues to use coal the way we are using it today, and the world -- I mean in particular not only the United States but China, India and Russia -- then it is a pretty bad dream." He continued, "That is to say in China, for example, they have not yet begun to even trap the sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides. There's mercury. There's particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide."

If anything, though, Chu's remarks at the hearing likely eased the lawmakers' fears, as he asserted that nuclear and coal will remain crucial components in the energy mix. On coal, Chu had previously said, "It's not guaranteed that we have a solution for coal" -- meaning that there is currently no proven technology to offset the C02 emissions resulting from burning coal. In today's hearing, he softened, saying he's "very hopeful" that carbon capture and sequester (CCS) technology is possible on a commercial scale. "I am optimistic we can figure out how to use those resources in a clean way. I'm very hopeful that this will occur and I think that we will be using that great natural resource."

Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data

Say you said to yourself, "Gee, I wish we could prevent global warming." Your next thought might be, "Gosh, where do greenhouse emissions come from?" Well, I asked myself just that question a while back. So I decided to jump into the IPCC Working Group III Assessment Report, and I've posted a Google workbook, called "GreenhouseGasEmissions," which should let you know just about everything you always wanted to know about the global sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The biggest surprise to me was the sheer number of major sources. I don't know whether it would be easier to slay a few big greenhouse gas monsters or a bunch of medium-sized ones, but we're basically stuck with the latter.

Speaking of monsters, according to my calculations, all coal-fired power plants together are responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gases (all of these figures are for 2004, in CO2 equivalent megatonnes, from IPCC Working Group III reports, and any errors are mine). Shutting down all coal-fired power plants would decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent -- but that would still leave 82 percent, and I'm assuming we want to get as close to zero human-made greenhouse gas emissions as possible.

Amazingly, the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) used to provide heat for buildings and industry are responsible for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions -- more than all the coal-fired power plants. In a way, that statistic understates the importance of using carbon-free sources like wind, solar, and geothermal for electricity generation, because if we want to switch transportation from oil to electricity, we will have to replace transportation's oil, responsible for 14 percent of emissions, with electricity sources that do not include the use of fossil fuels. And if we want to eliminate the emissions from heating, we will have to use carbon-free electricity and also redesign/retrofit buildings.

Forests might be some of the cheapest of the "lowest hanging fruit" to save, since they account for almost 16 percent of emissions. But I'm worried about what to do about belching livestock -- how do we get rid of their 4 percent? It might be easier to prevent the 5 percent of all emissions caused by the overuse of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Before we get into details, however, let's take a stroll through the basics of greenhouse gas accounting.