Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 136
June 5, 2015
Norway Will Divest From Coal
The Norwegian Parliament’s website Friday featured this image of a lump of coal and the statement: The Storting is unanimous in its agreement to pull the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) out of coal.
CREDIT: via the Storting
The Norwegian Parliament voted Friday to remove coal investments from the country’s $890 billion government pension fund, which is considered the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world.
Under the new policy, power and mining companies whose activities or revenue are at least 30 percent coal-related will be removed from the portfolio.
Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages the huge Norwegian fund, said its goal was “safeguarding and building financial wealth for future generations in Norway,” according to the New York Times. The reasons for divesting include “long-established climate-change risk-management expectations,” spokeswoman Marthe Skaar told the paper.
The decision will most likely force the Norwegian fund, called the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), to divest from 122 companies totaling $8.7 billion, according to calculations made by the environmental group Greenpeace and its partners.
“Norway’s decision to take a stand against coal is an example for other governments — and for investors — about shifting from polluting energy sources towards clean, renewable power,” Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said in a statement.
Greenpeace identified 49 U.S.-based companies or subsidiaries that the GPFG will no longer be able invest in, including major U.S. utilities and power producers like Duke Energy, American Electric Power, and NRG Energy.
The divestment is set to be carried out by Jan. 1, 2016.
Norway joins a growing list of organizations — including big universities, pension funds, and even the Church of England — that are divesting from coal. Coal is the largest stationary source of carbon emissions in the U.S., and reducing or eliminating coal use is seen as critical to preventing catastrophic climate change.
Norway’s divestment announcement has been criticized, though, for being slightly hypocritical: the GPFG is a so-called “oil fund,” meaning much of its investments will remain in fossil fuels, despite dropping coal.
“[This] is a day for celebration, but the GPFG will not be rid of every coal company in its portfolio as well as tens of billions of dollars still invested in the oil and gas industry,” said Truls Gulowsen, the head of Greenpeace in Norway, in a statement. “Norway is also still engaged in Arctic oil drilling, so while this is great news, there is still lots of work to do for Norway before it can brand itself as truly climate friendly.”
The post Norway Will Divest From Coal appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Here’s What The 2015 Drought Will Do To California’s Economy
As California’s fields run dry, the state’s economy is expected to lose billions.
CREDIT: Shutterstock
The historic drought plaguing California has done more than close golf courses and incite a nationwide debate about almonds — it could result in a $2.7 billion dollar hit to the state’s economy from agricultural losses, according to research released earlier this week by the University of California, Davis.
Although the economic cost is nearly half a billion more than last year, it’s still a relatively small drop in California’s massive economy — agriculture, despite claiming a great deal of the state’s water, accounts for only about 2 percent of its overall gross domestic product. The total expected loss to California’s agricultural economy — worth $45 billion — is just 6 percent.
“The 2015 drought is not as severe as initially anticipated, but worse than 2014 in terms of reduced water availability and economic impact to agriculture,” the researchers wrote in an analysis to the California Department of Agriculture on May 31. For the most part, researchers found, farmers have been able to supplement water cuts by pumping groundwater, buffering losses from crop fallowing, and curbing employment losses.
Still, some 564,000 acres are estimated to be left unplanted this year due to the drought, a 33 percent increase over 2014 that will result in the loss of approximately 18,600 full-time, part-time, and seasonal jobs. That’s a 9 percent increase from last year, when the drought claimed 17,100 jobs.
To avoid large economic losses, California farmers are beginning to shift production of certain crops to areas where water is more readily available. Tomatoes, for instance, are being grown more and more in the northern parts of the state, where water shortages are less of an issue than in the state’s more arid southern half.
Farmers have also taken a historic step in offering to voluntarily curb their water use. Recently, water rights holders whose property directly touches a water source in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta agreed to curb their water use by 25 percent. In exchange for that voluntary cut, the State Water Board has agreed not to impose other cuts later in the growing season.
It’s unclear how much of a difference the move will make, however, as the area impacted by the agreement accounts for less than 10 percent of California’s agricultural land.
On Tuesday, during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing about the current conditions in the West, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) called for a greater understanding of how climate change would impact drought in the future, highlighting the potential economic impact agricultural losses could have nationwide. She noted that her state’s drought is causing water shortages in the Yakima Basin, Washington’s most productive agricultural region. Crop losses there are expected to cost the state $1.2 billion in 2015.
“We need to develop bold, innovative, 21st century strategies for water management that not only respond to drought conditions today, but also prepare us for an uncertain future,” Cantwell said. “This requires new ways of thinking and collaborating, and not just incremental changes at this point in time.”
The post Here’s What The 2015 Drought Will Do To California’s Economy appeared first on ThinkProgress.
California’s Senate Passes Sweeping Climate Change Legislation
CREDIT: AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
The California Senate passed a package of bills this week to address climate change, legislation that includes a plan to reduce gasoline use on California’s roads by 50 percent, increase energy efficiency by 50 percent, and have 50 percent of California’s electricity come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.
The 12 bills also include measures to direct cap and trade funds toward public transportation infrastructure, extend the emissions reduction target to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and divest California’s public pensions from coal.
“This package of bills represents the most far-reaching effort to fight climate change in the history of our nation,” Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León said in a statement. “These bills put California on path to sustainable economic growth, while also protecting the health of our communities.”
California has generally been leading the charge in the Unites States on addressing climate change. These bills echo previous initiatives by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who released higher emissions reductions targets in April. Brown also signed an agreement with Mexico in May to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address other environmental issues. He signed another 11-party agreement last month with city leaders around the world to help pave the way to keeping climate change under the 2°C limit, which is assumed as necessary to avoid some of the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
California is also acutely vulnerable to the effects of climate change and fossil fuel use. The state is in the midst of a historic drought, which is intensifying forest fire risks, damaging the agriculture business, and raising concerns about the state’s future. The drought has been specifically tied to climate change. In addition, in May, an oil pipeline burst near Santa Barbara at a state beach, spilling thousands of gallons of oil.
One bill addresses offshore oil and gas drilling, seeking to close a loophole that allows some offshore drilling close to the spill’s location.
“As long as you drill, there will be spills,” Santa Barbara Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson said. The bill would not close any existing wells, but it would prohibit any news ones in California waters.
California Republicans criticized the new measures, which still have to be approved by the Assembly before they are sent to the governor’s desk.
Senate Republican leader Bob Huff called the bill package a “lofty and noble goal,” but questioned whether or not it would accomplish anything. Other lawmakers said the bill would be a job killer.
California already has one of the highest renewable portfolio standards in the country, requiring 25 percent of electricity to come from renewables by 2016, and 33 percent by 2020. Unsurprisingly — or surprisingly, whichever way you want to look at it — these policies have not killed California’s economy. The solar industry employs nearly 55,00 Californians, and last year $11.75 billion was spent on solar in the state.
The post California’s Senate Passes Sweeping Climate Change Legislation appeared first on ThinkProgress.
NOAA Study Confirms Global Warming Speed-Up Is Imminent
A major new study from NOAA finds more evidence that we may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. As I reported in April, many recent studies have found that we are about to enter an era of even more rapid global warming.
Indeed, one March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” warns the speed-up is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.
The new study in Science from a team of NOAA scientists, “finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century,” as NOAA explains.
The director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, Thomas Karl, told the UK Guardian that “considering all the short-term factors identified by the scientific community that acted to slow the rate of global warming over the past two decades (volcanoes, ocean heat uptake, solar decreases, predominance of La Niñas, etc.) it is likely the temperature increase would have accelerated in comparison to the late 20th Century increases.”
What happens when these various temporary factors stop? Karl explained: “Once these factors play out, and they may have already, global temperatures could rise more rapidly than what we have seen so far.”
In other words, the long-awaited jump is global temperatures is likely imminent. How big is the jump? As I reported in April, top climatologist Kevin Trenberth has said it would be as much as 0.5°F. Given that 2015 is crushing it for the hottest year on record, we appear to be already witnessing a big piece of that jump.
NOAA’s new study not only incorporates the latest global temperature data from 2013 and 2014. Their “calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets” (detailed here). The result, as NOAA explains, is that the new “study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or ‘hiatus’ in the rate of global warming in recent years.” In particular, the authors conclude bluntly:
Indeed, based on our new analysis, the IPCC’s statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years” – is no longer valid.
Turns out the “long-term global warming trend” — which is redundant because the global warming trend was always a long-term phenomenon — has remained constant. But then CP readers already knew that. Back in January I reported that Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, tweeted, “Is there evidence that there is a significant change of trend from 1998? (Spoiler: No.)” He posted this chart:
NASA temperature data dispel the myth of a recent slow-down in long-term warming trend. But there was a big jump in temps during the mid-1990s. Many scientists believe we may be witnessing the start of another jump.
On Thursday, Schmidt posted on RealClimate an excellent analysis of the faux pause.
The March study mentioned earlier makes clear the only “pause” there has been was in the long-expected speed-up of global warming. The rate of surface warming should have started to accelerate in the past decade, rather than stay fairly constant.
The authors warned that, by 2020, human-caused warming will move the Earth’s climate system into a regime of rapid multi-decadal rates of warming. They project that within the next few years, “there is an increased likelihood of accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean.”
That appears to be happening now.
The post NOAA Study Confirms Global Warming Speed-Up Is Imminent appeared first on ThinkProgress.
A ‘House Of Horrors': Thousands Of Michigan Residents Subject To Contaminated Drinking Water
Rupali Srivastava is an intern with ThinkProgress at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
[image error]Unsafe drinking water worries Flint, Michigan, residents.
CREDIT: Shutterstock
Thousands of Michigan residents are being exposed to potentially contaminated drinking water that could pose threats to their health and well-being, residents and lawmakers said at a Wednesday hearing.
Members of both political parties and chambers of the state Congress invited residents from the Detroit area to voice concerns about the drinking water. Since withdrawing from the Detroit water system in April 2014, the city of Flint, which is about 70 miles northwest of Detroit and has a population of nearly 100,000, has used water from the Flint River for its residents, drawing criticism from many who say it is unsafe.
Safety tests conducted in 2014 and early 2015 showed high levels of TTHM or THM in the drinking water, violating the Safe Drinking Water Act. TTHM, or total trihalomethane, is a byproduct of chlorine disinfection. According to the EPA, prolonged exposure to or consumption of such chemicals can pose significant health risks.
The Flint River has a history of poor water quality due to industrial pollution and agricultural runoff, according to an assessment by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. But efforts to remove pollutants and clean up the river have been successful in the past 40 years. Now, some are wondering if the problem lies in the city’s treatment of the water, which differs from its treatment of its previous water source, Lake Huron.
“I’m guessing it’s a combination of a big problem that started early, and then the treatment system,” said Lynn Thorp of Clean Water Action. Thorp cited pollution, contamination, coloration, and taste as problems contributing to Flint’s drinking water problem.
Many learned about the drinking water health violation through a federal notice sent to Flint residents in January. “We were not told for 10 months that our water was failing all the THM violation tests,” said resident Melissa Mays at the hearing. Mays organized a march in February to protest the city’s drinking water after noticing rashes and hair falling out.
Since the news of water contamination broke in January, some residents are speaking out against the city’s new water system. February protesters said the water was caustic and had forced them to buy bottled water to drink.
At the Wednesday hearing, residents shared stories of rashes and other medical problems after drinking the water from the river. One resident at the hearing said she couldn’t use water for laundry and had to take her clothes to a laundromat. Another said she wore gloves while cleaning dishes to protect her hands from the water, otherwise her hands would itch and burn.
In addition to the health risks, water affordability remains a concern of the Flint community. Resident Cindy Marshall told Michigan Live she spends close to $300 in water bills and bottled water per month. “I wish Flint officials would give us our Detroit water back,” she said.
The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department did offer to reconnect Flint to its water system in January 2015 after news of the contamination spread, but the city chose to keep drawing from the river. According to the Detroit Free Press, a city analysis concluded that rejoining the Detroit system would increase Flint’s costs by $12 million per year.
Residents demanded that officials find a solution to the city’s water problem, but so far, lawmakers have not put forth any specific plan or legislation to do so. Flint resident Nayyirah Shariff said at the hearing the drinking water problem had become a “house of horrors” and needed to be fixed.
Flint water is slowly becoming safer, but is still in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act because one testing site out of eight still has an unacceptably high level of TTHM, according to Michigan Live.
While residents continue to pay high prices to consume unsafe water, members of Congress hope to find a legislative solution. “This is not a Detroit issue, a Highland Park issue, a Flint issue,” said Rep. Christine Greig (D-Farmington Hills) at the hearing. “This is a Michigan issue.” Rep. Sheldon Neeley (D-Flint) hopes the hearing will serve as a framework for future legislation to protect the Flint residents’ right to safe drinking water.
The post A ‘House Of Horrors': Thousands Of Michigan Residents Subject To Contaminated Drinking Water appeared first on ThinkProgress.
The Tide Is Turning Against ALEC In The Renewable Energy Battle
CREDIT: PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy
Powerful interests are facing off on the future of renewable energy in North Carolina.
A bill to freeze the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) — a mandate on how much clean energy utilities have to use — was shoved through committee last month, but despite a wide Republican majority (34-16), the bill hasn’t been brought to the Senate floor. Similar legislation has been introduced and shot down in past years.
Environmental and business groups fighting the bill say that reintroducing the same bill until it passes is a classic American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) tactic. The North Carolina bill was brought by a legislator affiliated with ALEC, the conservative group backed by the Koch brothers, whose billion-dollar enterprise is built largely on fossil fuels.
But despite the time and money ALEC is pouring into fighting the transition to renewable energy, it seems that wind and solar have some powerful supporters, as well. Big businesses, including data services and clean energy developers, have paired with environmental advocates to stymie many of ALEC’s challenges.
Last year, ALEC-affiliated legislators in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, and Ohio proposed rolling back state RPSs. New Mexico and New Hampshire saw efforts, as well. Only the efforts in Ohio were successful, while Kansas reached a different agreement this year.
Across the country, supporters have relied on free market rhetoric to say RPSs make electricity more expensive. “The high cost of renewable energy is paid by all state citizens, including those who already struggle to pay the cost of electricity,” according to ALEC’s sample legislation for repealing an RPS.
In North Carolina, where a companion bill already passed in the House, Americans for Prosperity’s North Carolina state director Donald Bryson echoed ALEC’s position, saying that the customer fees were set to triple.
“This compromise measure provides relief to families who pay their utility bills and work hard to grow the economy without taxpayer support or government favors,” Bryson said.
The local utility company, though, disagreed with that analysis.
Duke Energy, North Carolina’s giant electricity company — which doesn’t have the cleanest record — doesn’t have a problem with the RPS, and says that ratepayers have not been put on the hook for clean power investment in the state.
We don’t think the current REP is a cost burden to customers.
“We did not ask for this legislation; we are actually neutral on this legislation,” Randy Wheeless, a spokesman for Duke Energy, told ThinkProgress. The utility has stayed “well under” the cost cap stipulated in the RPS, Wheeless said. “We don’t think the current REP is a cost burden to customers,” he said. In his home area, customers pay about 50 cents a month to support renewable energy development.
North Carolina has been something of a solar success story. Last year, the state was in the top five for solar job growth, adding 2,500 workers, , $652 million was invested in solar installations, and 13 times more solar was installed than in 2010. In fact, North Carolina recently extended an investment tax credit for solar, and the state has attracted some of the biggest names in technology. Data centers use a phenomenal amount of power, and for tech companies, renewable energy is a key component in plans to go green.
While the bill flounders awaiting Senate vote, Apple, Facebook, and Google co-signed a letter to state leadership last week, saying the RPS actually saves money for ratepayers. The companies cited the RPS as a reason they have located in North Carolina.
“The undersigned companies have chosen to locate in North Carolina in part because the state’s existing energy policies enable us to operate and grow our businesses in furtherance of the goals mentioned above,” the letter says.
Renewable energy might save money, but it also has widespread support. A recent University of Michigan poll found that the majority of Americans, “of every race, income and education level, and religious and political affiliation,” support state-level mandates on renewable energy.
The more popular renewable energy is, the more pressure companies have to get off fossil fuels. In one stark example, Amazon has been asked to account for its energy mix after announcing new cloud computing centers in coal-heavy Ohio (which did freeze its RPS last year). Yahoo, Hootsuite, and 17 other online companies have all asked the company to reveal its energy sources.
We are increasingly concerned about our responsibility as companies who value sustainability and share concerns about climate change.
“Given the threat of climate change and the significant amount of electricity needed to power the cloud, we are increasingly concerned about our responsibility as companies who value sustainability and share concerns about climate change,” the companies wrote.
The fact is solar and wind are becoming better and better investments for companies and utilities, even without mandates. The price of solar, for example, has dropped in half since 2010, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), a DC-based trade group. Nearly all of the solar installed in North Carolina is utility-scale. (Apple and other large private electricity users have installed some of their own projects, but a limit on leasing for residential users has prevented the homeowner market from taking off.)
In other words, killing the RPS won’t kill renewable energy, in North Carolina or around the country. Duke’s Wheeless said they have four major solar projects expected to come on line this year and that solar development will continue “with or without this bill.”
ALEC’s one RPS win this year was somewhat of a hollow victory, industry insiders say. For five years, some legislators in Kansas had pushed to rollback that state’s RPS, which is fulfilled primarily with wind farms. Last month, the wind industry and conservative groups came to a compromise, scrapping the RPS in exchange for tax certainty.
But the wind industry is a juggernaut in Kansas. Last year, wind provided 21.7 percent of all the electricity generated in Kansas, more than the 20 percent mandated under the RPS. The 2,967 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity in the state — with another 827 MW under construction — has led to 12,000 jobs and $8 billion in investment, according to the Wind Coalition, an industry group involved in the negotiations.
“This bill is a paper victory that won’t change any of the underlying economic realities favoring the continued development of Kansas’ cheap, clean, inexhaustible wind resources for years to come,” said Dorothy Barnett, executive director, Climate + Energy Project. “The renewable energy momentum we are seeing signals to the world that Kansas is still open for business.”
Republican Governor Sam Brownbeck also knows how important wind is to his state. “I want to see the industry keep growing,” he said flat out when the repeal was announced.
But despite assurances and investment from states and utilities, renewable energy advocates say repealing RPSs send a bad message — and highlights a bigger issue.
“There’s no cost to the state. The utilities aren’t asking for it. So why do it? The only logical answer: politics,” said Ken Johnson, vice president for SEIA. “Some groups supported by fossil fuel interests are hell bent on killing clean energy, and the people of North Carolina shouldn’t be duped by their sleight-of-hand tactics.”
The post The Tide Is Turning Against ALEC In The Renewable Energy Battle appeared first on ThinkProgress.
June 4, 2015
Georgetown University Votes To Divest From Coal
Students from Tufts University march for fossil fuel divestment.
CREDIT: Flickr/James Ennis
Georgetown University’s board of directors voted to divest the school’s endowment from coal companies Thursday, a move that fell short of students’ hopes for divestment from all fossil fuel companies.
Students staged a sit-in on campus in the lead-up to the board meeting to press the school’s board of directors to vote in favor of divesting from fossil fuels. They were disappointed by the board’s final decision — coal makes up only a small portion of the board’s total investments, they said, and as a Jesuit institution, Georgetown has a moral obligation to divest from fossil fuels.
[image error]
Elaine Colligan, a recent Georgetown graduate, sits with other students during a sit-in for fossil fuel divestment Thursday, June 4, 2015.
CREDIT: Katie Valentine
“If the Board had made their decision for principally moral reasons, then they would have supported full divestment from both direct and commingled funds from coal, oil, and gas companies,” student divestment group Georgetown University Fossil Free (GUFF), which organized the sit-in, wrote in response to the vote. “If Georgetown understands coal investments to be immoral, the only reason not to divest from commingled funds which include coal would be because doing so is more logistically difficult than divesting from direct investments, a meager excuse considering the urgency of the climate crisis.”
If Georgetown had divested completely from fossil fuels, it would have been the largest university so far to do so, according to GUFF.
Georgetown, for its part, invoked its religious standing as part of the reason for voting to divest its $1.5 billion endowment divestment from coal.
“As a Catholic and Jesuit university, we are called to powerfully engage the world, human culture, and the environment – bringing to bear the intellectual and spiritual resources that our community is built upon,” Georgetown President John J. DeGioia said in a statement. The university said in the statement that it would “continue on a regular basis to evaluate in-depth issues related to socially responsible investments and management of the endowment.”
The moral implications of fossil fuel divestment was a major part of GUFF’s message during the sit-in Thursday. Students pointed to the fact that poor countries and communities often bear the brunt of climate change’s impacts, and that holding fossil fuel investments doesn’t fit with the school’s Catholic values, especially with Pope Francis’ increasing focus on climate change and environmental issues.
Aaron Silberman, a rising sophomore at Georgetown and a member of GUFF, said that the group would keep pushing the board of directors to fully divest from fossil fuels.
“The board of directors were elected based on the notion that they would represent and be guardians of Georgetown’s present, past, and future,” Siberman said. Holding investments in fossil fuels — an industry that jeopardizes the future of the planet by contributing to climate change — doesn’t fit with that expectation, he said.
[image error]
Pro-divestment igns at Georgetown University Thursday, June 4, 2015.
CREDIT: Katie Valentine
Silberman said he knew that the divestment movement wouldn’t solve climate change on it’s own, but that it was a key part of the broader fight against climate change. The movement, which started as a campaign of climate action group 350.org, has spread to campuses and foundations around the world. So far, more than 30 universities have committed to some form of divestment — whether it be from all fossil fuels or just coal companies. Stanford University, in a move similar to Georgetown’s, committed to divesting from coal last month.
Caroline James, a rising senior and member of GUFF who attended the sit-in, agreed with Silberman that the divestment movement isn’t the end-all be-all for climate change action.
“It’s more about a paradigm shift than in causing [oil and gas company] Shell financial hardship,” she said. That paradigm shift involves universities realizing that working to reduce their carbon emissions isn’t enough — they also need to stop investing in companies that are threatening the planet’s future.
Despite the disappointment of the university’s focus on coal rather than all fossil fuels, Silberman was still thankful that the university took up the issue Thursday. He said he was glad that the university at least voted to divest from coal, instead of rejecting all fossil fuel divestment, as some other universities have done.
“We can look at this as being a small step in the right direction,” he said.
The post Georgetown University Votes To Divest From Coal appeared first on ThinkProgress.
The EPA Just Released A Long-Awaited Study On Whether Fracking Causes Water Pollution
The EPA finally released its long-awaited study on fracking and drinking water.
CREDIT: Shutterstock
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft assessment of its long-awaited study on the impact of hydraulic fracturing — also known as fracking — on drinking water resources in the United States. The report found that although fracking has, to date, been carried out in a way that has not led to widespread and systematic impacts on the country’s drinking water, the process creates several key vulnerabilities that could potentially undermine the health of drinking water in the United States.
“From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources,” the report’s executive summary reads. “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
In a statement to the press, EPA science advisor and deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development Thomas Burke called the study “the most complete compilation of scientific data to date,” noting that over 950 sources of information from published papers, technical reports, and data from various interest groups were included in the assessment.
Industry groups were quick to tout the report as proof of fracking’s safety, while environmental groups claimed that the report was hampered by a lack of available information and watered-down by oil and gas interests.
The study wasn’t a comprehensive survey of all wells, and relied heavily on data already collected by state and federal agencies or willingly submitted by gas and oil companies. Reliance on self-reporting from fracking companies has also plagued researchers trying to understand the risk of methane emissions, raising concern that the companies that willingly submit their data tend to be the ones already taking the most steps to limit their potential for pollution. Environmental groups say the EPA’s comprehensive study has similar problems with its data, and fear that it might have colored the assessment’s ultimate conclusions.
“The EPA found disturbing evidence of fracking polluting our water despite not looking very hard. This study was hobbled by the oil industry’s refusal to provide key data,” Kassie Siegel, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an emailed statement to ThinkProgress.
Burke acknowledged gaps in data, but did not blame them on industry, which he described as “a major source of information” and “generally very cooperative.” Instead, he found gaps in the data to be a product of a general lack of understanding and resources — but noted that he didn’t feel as though gaps in data contributed to a faulty report.
“This study was about understanding the entire water cycle of the fracking,” Burke said. “We feel confident about finding vulnerabilities in the entire cycle.”
The assessment, Burke cautioned, was not meant to be a categorical compilation of every incidence of water contamination from fracking. Though the report includes several specific examples of water contamination, it also notes that these instances don’t appear to be pervasive within the practice. The report looked at both fracking and fracking-related activities, noting that water resources are especially vulnerable to contamination from the potential leaking of wells and above-ground waste water spills.
“The focus of our study was on wells that were fracked, but there is a narrow window in time where that fracking takes place. We looked far beyond that to look at the entire water cycle,” Burke said, noting that there are instances where the process of fracking itself compromised well construction, which in turn led to surface water contamination.
“[Fracking] is a very high pressure activity — pressure leads to the importance of having well construction that has well integrity that can endure that,” Burke said.
According to Burke, specific examples complement the assessment’s broad look at the water cycle involved with fracking, noting that it offers both industry and interest groups a chance to compare overall vulnerability assessments with specific examples of contamination.
“I think it’s important to clarify that this is a study of how we can best protect our water resources,” Burke said. “It’s not a question of safe or unsafe.”
The report is the largest comprehensive look to date at the controversial practice, the use of which has become widespread in recent years while inspiring political battles at both the local and federal level. Fracking involves the injection of liquid into underground rock in an attempt to break that rock and extract the oil and gas that might be inside — a process that, according to the assessment, uses an average of 44 billion gallons of water annually and could potentially impact the drinking water of thousands of communities across the United States.
The report offers both a meta-analysis of available scientific literature to date and a new research conducted by the EPA, to be published in tandem with the draft assessment.
“The purpose of the release as a draft,” Burke said, “is to assure that we have the highest level of peer review for this work.”
The draft assessment, which was first ordered by Congress in 2010, will now undergo an 85-day comment period and peer review before becoming final.
The post The EPA Just Released A Long-Awaited Study On Whether Fracking Causes Water Pollution appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Rick Perry Says He’ll Approve Keystone XL ‘On Day One’ If Elected President
In this Aug. 16, 2005 file photo, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, left, speaks at a Little Rock, Ark., news conference as Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts looks on at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion.
CREDIT: AP Photo/Danny Johnston
If elected president, former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that he would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline, authorize natural gas exports, and freeze the Obama administration’s proposed regulations on carbon dioxide.
“On my first day of office I will issue an immediate freeze on pending regulations from the Obama administration,” Perry said while announcing his second bid for the White House at an event in Addison, Texas on Thursday. “On day one I’ll also sign an executive order approving the construction of the Keystone pipeline. … On day one I’ll sign an executive order authorizing the export of american natural gas and freeing our allies from the dependence of Russia’s energy supplies.”
The Keystone XL portion of his promise brings back memories of the 2012 presidential election. Back then, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made the same promise to approve the controversial tar sands pipeline, thereby “creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked.” Republican candidate Paul Ryan made the promise as well, citing the need “to unlock the energy we have in this country to create jobs.”
Four years later, the pipeline — which would only create 35 full-time jobs and 15 temporary contractors — is still on hold. And it’s still a Republican priority. When the GOP took control of Congress this year, the first bill put forward by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was to approve the pipeline’s construction. But President Obama vetoed it in February, saying he wanted to make his decision based on the State Department’s administrative review procedure, and not Congressional legislation.
Environmentalists oppose the Keystone XL pipeline mainly because of the type of oil it would carry. Canadian tar sands oil is more carbon intensive than other types of oil, and harder than conventional oil to clean up when it spills. The carbon intensity of the fuel is a problem for those concerned about climate change, but ostensibly not for Rick Perry, who does not think climate change exists.
The post Rick Perry Says He’ll Approve Keystone XL ‘On Day One’ If Elected President appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Rick Perry Is A Climate Denier. But He’s Not The Worst GOP Candidate On The Environment.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry — bad on the environment, but surprisingly not the worst.
CREDIT: AP Photo/Kathy Willens
It’s true — Rick Perry denies global warming. The newly-announced 2016 presidential candidate and former Texas governor has sampled all the climate change denial cliches. He’s “not a scientist;” the science is “doctored;” there’s actually “a cooling trend.”
It’s also true that Perry is a huge proponent of fossil fuel development. During his presidential announcement Thursday, he said he’d approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on “day one” if elected. He’s called the Environmental Protection Agency a “cemetery for jobs.” Near Texas’ Refinery Row, where oil and chemical companies operated with limited regulation under Perry’s watch, poor communities breathe air with high levels of cancer-causing pollutants.
Despite all these things, Rick Perry is not the worst GOP candidate on the environment. In fact, he’s one of the only GOP candidates with at least a small record of implementing policies that have actively benefited the environment. Candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul all have zero percent scores from the League of Conservation Voters in 2014, meaning they literally voted against every key policy that would have had a positive impact on the environment.
Perry at least has had a few environmental successes, specifically related to renewable power and water. In 2013, facing a historic drought, Perry signed legislation that put $2 billion toward new water infrastructure, water conservation, and helping poor communities with irrigation techniques. In 2005, Perry signed legislation that required Texas to substantially increase its renewable energy capacity to 5,880 megawatts by 2015. And since then, wind has exploded — another nonbinding target of 10,000 megawatts by 2025 has already been surpassed. When Perry took office, Texas had only 116 megawatts of renewable capacity. Now, it has the most wind energy production in the country.
This can’t all be attributed to Perry. As the Texas Tribune notes, “generous federal incentives” for wind energy — incentives that have now expired — certainly played a large role. And environmentalists have called him “bipolar” on the issue, saying he only pushed forward on wind “when he saw he could get a political benefit.”
They real key to all this, though, is that Perry’s environmentally beneficial policies were rarely ever implemented for that express purpose. In other words, he doesn’t make environmental decisions for the environment’s sake. Most of the time, those benefits were just side effects of policies he believed to be economically helpful, or not harmful to the oil industry. So it seems safe to say that Perry, as president, would probably not take up policies strictly geared toward fighting human-caused climate change or reducing smog — unless he recognizes that both of those things have been shown to have real economic benefits.
That’s not really an environmentalist’s dream. But compared to most of the other GOP candidates, it’s not the worst they could do.
The post Rick Perry Is A Climate Denier. But He’s Not The Worst GOP Candidate On The Environment. appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Joseph J. Romm's Blog
- Joseph J. Romm's profile
- 10 followers
