oil

Getting the story straight in Chicago

In the last 20 minutes, I've read the following reports on the Caterpillar oil spill in Chicago:

"U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer William Mitchell ... says it poses no risk to human health but endangers animals." (Detroit Free Press)

"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say it appears no fish or animals were harmed by the spill. Officials say the oil could harm humans." (All Headline News)

"The EPA says there is no evidence the oil has harmed fish or birds and there is no danger for people." (Associated Press)

Well alright then.

Canadian bishop challenges the 'moral legitimacy' of tar sands production

The Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands has posted a scathing pastoral letter, "The Integrity of Creation and the Athabasca Oil Sands."

The letter by Bishop Luc Bouchard concludes, "even great financial gain does not justify serious harm to the environment," and "the present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oil sands cannot be morally justified." Equally powerful is who the letter is addressed to:

The critical points made in this letter are not directed to the working people of Fort McMurray but to oil company executives in Calgary and Houston, to government leaders in Edmonton and Ottawa, and to the general public whose excessive consumerist lifestyle drives the demand for oil.

We have met the enemy and he is us!

Other than sticking with the euphemism "oil sands" (see "Canada tries to tar-sandbag Obama on climate" the remarkably detailed and heavily footnoted letter is a brilliant piece of work dissecting what has been called the "biggest global warming crime ever seen."

Bishop Bouchard notes that "The environmental liabilities that result from the various steps in this process are significant and include":

• Destruction of the boreal forest eco-system
• Potential damage to the Athabasca water shed
• The release of greenhouse gases
• Heavy consumption of natural gas
• The creation of toxic tailings ponds

He writes at length on all five, and concludes

Any one of the above destructive effects provokes moral concern, but it is when the damaging effects are all added together that the moral legitimacy of oil sands production is challenged.

Here is what he says specifically about greenhouse gases:

Environmentalists go at it in Santa Barbara

Know what makes big, evil corporations happy? Watching environmentalists scratch each other's eyes out. Exhibit A: The coastal-drilling flap in Santa Barbara.

The basic story is this: California's State Lands Commission has just nixed a deal that would have allowed a Texas oil company to drill off the Santa Barbara coast. It would have been the first such drilling approved in the state since the late 1960s. The twist? Anti-oil activists had convinced the oil company to agree to shut down its four offshore drilling platforms by 2022, close a couple of processing plants, and give the county $1.5 million for low-emission buses (the hell?) -- all in exchange for fresh, juicy oil.

Gentlemen, start your pissing match!

Revealing skeptics as sock puppets in a few quick clicks

Want to play a fun Friday game? It's called Six Degrees of ExxonMobil. The object: To see how quickly you can get from a denier to ExxonMobil's coffers.

All you need to start is an opinion piece by a global warming denier. Let's take this column by Deroy Murdock for Scripps Howard News Service (he's also a contributing editor for the National Review Online).

OK, let's start. Deroy Murdock is a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. The Hoover Institution has received at least $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Wow, wasn't that easy and fun? OK, so it's not quite "Bruce Campbell was in The Majestic with Susan Willis, who was in Mystic River with Kevin Bacon," but the connection is just as reliable.

Salazar sends mixed signals on offshore drilling

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated on Tuesday that he intends to scrap the Bush administration's leasing plan that would have opened the coasts to drilling, even as he said the Obama administration is open to some expanded development of offshore oil and gas fields.

The Bush administration's DOI issued a draft of a five-year leasing plan several days before leaving office, following on the expiration of the outer continental shelf moratorium last fall. But Salazar told the Associated Press that his department plans to work with Congress to craft "a plan that makes sense" for offshore oil and gas development in the context of a broader energy policy.

Though he didn't elaborate on areas that might be off-limits, Salazar advocated for some level of protection, which is an improvement, since currently there is nothing protecting the coasts. "There are places that are appropriate for exploration and development and there are places that are not," he said.

Today's Wall Street Journal chose to focus on Salazar's refusal to rule out trying to reinstitute the offshore drilling ban. Under the headline "Offshore Drilling on the Table" (sub. req'd.), the newspaper reported:

"Asked about the Bush administration's proposal to open certain areas of the East and West coasts to drilling and whether he saw any opportunities for expanded development of the nation's offshore areas, Mr. Salazar said: "When you look at the whole [outer continental shelf], it's a huge potential. And it has to be done carefully. We don't want to ruin the beaches of Florida and the coastlines of other places that are sensitive. On the other hand, there are places where it may be appropriate for us to have reconnaissance and exploration and even development. Those are questions that we are exploring and hopefully over the months ahead we'll have answers to these questions."

On 'mitigating' coal damage

This NYT editorial on the mythiness of "clean coal" is most welcome, but the conclusion rubs me the wrong way:

But coal remains an inherently dirty fuel, and a huge contributor to not only ground-level pollution -- including acid rain and smog -- but also global warming. The sooner the country understands that, the closer it will be to mitigating the damage.

If coal is inherently dirty, why should we confine our ambitions to "mitigating the damage"? Why not try to stop using it?

You never see this when people talk about oil. When people rehearse the damage oil is doing to our atmosphere, our land, and our geopolitical posture, they do not finish by meekly calling on Americans to clean up the messes. They say we should reduce and eventually eliminate our use of oil.

Why is coal different?

I know, I know, it's domestic, but domestic poison still kills. It's got to be more than that, no?

Deep thought

Reliance on oil brings a stream of calls to "break our addiction" and find "alternative sources." Reliance on coal brings a stream of paeans to the importance of coal.

Salazar promises to ‘clean up mess’ at Interior, looks like a shoo-in for confirmation

Ken Salazar. At his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday, Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar said he would promote sound environmental and energy policies through his role in the new administration. His former colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee seemed to think he'd do a fine job.</p> <p>Salazar pledged to "clean up the mess" […]

A detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use greenhouse-gas emissions

Greenhouse gases come in two basic flavors: carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and emissions from land use -- agriculture, forests, peat bogs, and waste management. Fossil fuels are primarily used for energy in three sectors: buildings, industry, and transportation. Transportation is almost entirely oil-based -- according to the International Energy Association, about 0.1 percent of transportation energy currently comes from electricity.

Just to make things complicated, people use fossil fuels to make electricity to use in buildings and industry. Well, actually, we use fossil fuels to make electricity -- and -- we use fossil fuels to make heat to use in buildings and industry. In my previous post, I presented some pretty exciting tables summarizing this global state of affairs (and the accompanying Google workbook). Now, in part 2, a detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use emissions: