Compass

Nebraskans Fight Back Against Tar Sands Giveaway

Last month, the Nebraska legislature rewrote state law to try and smooth the way for the dangerous and controversial Keystone XL pipeline. But today a group of Nebraska landowners has filed a lawsuit in Nebraska challenging the constitutionality of those changes and asking the court to uphold the right of Nebraskans to protect their property from a foreign company.

Keystone XL is a massive tar sands pipeline that would endanger the Ogallala Aquifer -- the nation's largest aquifer and the source of drinking water for millions of people. Farmers in the Sand Hills and other agricultural regions in Nebraska with sandy soils and shallow groundwater are at particular risk from the pipeline trenching. All of Nebraska is at risk from the contamination of surface water and groundwater sources in the event of a spill. And TransCanada’s dismal safety record means that risk is very likely, and very real.

After heavy lobbying by TransCanada the Nebraska legislature voted to hand Nebraska's future over to Big Oil on a silver platter. The law lets the governor grant pipeline companies such as TransCanada immediate eminent domain authority -- the right to force landowners to hand over their property to the company -- without having to wait for federal permits. This reckless law also eliminates transparent environmental assessment requirements, in effect giving Nebraska land to a foreign company without accountability or any need to review environmental impacts.

The lawsuit, Thompson v. Heineman, will focus on the fact that this law fails to provide for judicial review, lets the governor hand over eminent domain powers without any sort of standards, and gives favor to "a single company and not persons in general, which violates the Nebraska state constitution." In other words, it throws Nebraska families and communities -- people who have earned their livelihood on their land for generations -- overboard.

The Sierra Club's Ken Winston, a Nebraskan who first raised the constitutional question in the state legislature, recognized the Nebraska farmers who are leading this fight, saying, "Randy Thompson, Susan Luebbe, and Susan Dunavan are true American patriots standing up for the fundamental rights of all Nebraskans. The state cannot deny Nebraskans the right to protect property from a foreign company. And these Nebraska landowners, along with the Sierra Club and our broad coalition of partners, won't take the bullying and deception from an oil company lying down."

Americans Agree With President Obama: Wind Is the Way

On Thursday, President Obama will visit a wind turbine factory in Iowa to promote the critical need for investments in American-made clean energy. Iowa – which already gets 20 percent of its power from wind - is the nation’s second largest wind energy-producing state after Texas and home to TPI Composites, where the President will speak.

On track to produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity by 2030, wind power has already created tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs while helping keep our families healthy by moving the country beyond dirty energy.

During his visit to Iowa, President Obama is expected to call for the much-needed extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), the federal policy that has given wind energy a boost by creating American jobs  at places like TPI Composites.  Currently, the PTC is set to expire at the end of the year -- and if Congress fails to renew it, they would deal a tragic blow to our economy, costing upwards of 37,000 jobs. 

From More Fracking to Fewer Jobs: Secrets Of The Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement

Tight-lipped police officers and security guards: Not exactly what I expected to see when I walked onto the second floor of the Intercontinental Hotel in Addison, Texas where trade negotiators convened last week. While representatives from the U.S. and eight other Pacific Rim countries met behind closed doors for the 12th round of negotiations for a massive new free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, I was barred from negotiating sessions. I have never seen a single word of the draft TPP. And while roughly 600 corporate and 30-odd non-corporate trade advisors do have access to the text, federal law prohibits them from discussing specific contents of the TPP.

The Sierra Club is deeply concerned about the environmental implications of the TPP.  We understand and appreciate that U.S. negotiators are pushing for strong and enforceable standards in the environment chapter of the agreement, including binding language that would address environmental challenges such as illegal logging and overfishing.

As these provisions are core to the work of the Sierra Club, we should be satisfied, right? Well, since the text is being kept from the public, we don’t actually know the status or details of these proposals. And there are many other parts of the TPP that could directly undermine these very efforts to strengthen environmental protection while also putting the U.S. economy and workers at risk.

Why is this “21st century trade agreement,” with such purported benefits, being hidden from the American public? Let’s take a look at what they’re hiding:

Stricter Safeguards for Federal Land Fracking

From contaminated drinking water to destroyed public lands, it’s crystal clear that the oil and gas industry is responsible for putting public health and the environment at risk daily. Now, we have a chance to let the federal government know how crucial it is to minimize the impacts of drilling and demand that certain areas are off-limits to drilling.

Earlier this month, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued proposals for rules on oil and gas production on public lands – but they were laughably weak. Their disclosure requirement really made our eyes roll – it said that oil and gas companies would disclose the toxins they use in fracking only after the deed was done. If it must be done, fracking for natural gas should be thoroughly regulated at all stages to protect our public lands and the water we drink.

BLM manages over 700 million acres of mineral rights below the surface of the U.S. Many of these acres are located under national forests, wildlife refuges, and federal lands. The federal government should take this as an opportunity to use rigorous rules to potentially minimize the impact of oil and gas production. Federal rules governing the extraction process should be the gold standard, requiring the best available technology so that the land we own is protected for future generations.

Clearly, BLM could use some help, and your voice must be heard! As the largest manager of oil and gas resources in the U.S., BLM’s in the spotlight to lead by example. We must demand that at the very least, drilling on sensitive lands should be totally off-limits—including wilderness areas, roadless areas, national parks and national monuments—just to name a few!

When BLM does lease land, it should follow rules that are at least as protective as those in other states. Here’s how we think the minimum requirements should look:

1. Full disclosure of chemicals: ALL chemicals used in drilling, including trade secrets, should be disclosed to the general public 30 days prior to drilling. Any land owner and tenant within half a mile of both the vertical and horizontal well should receive this disclosure so they can adequately monitor their drinking water.


2. A ban on the use of diesel fuel: Diesel and drinking water don’t mix, but it’s still being used by gas companies in their fracking chemical cocktails. Diesel fuel and diesel by-products pose serious risks to Americans’ health and belongs nowhere near our drinking water.


3. Direct control and monitoring of methane: While the technology exists, most states don’t require direct capture of methane at the surface of the well. The industry shouldn't be allowed to knowingly release this climate-disrupting compound into the atmosphere. Instead, they should be required to capture it and prevent it from entering the atmosphere. There’s even an incentive for them since methane is a valuable, sellable product. 


4. Strict management of ALL fluids: Billions of gallons of water are used every year for fracking, so it’s important that we know where this water is going and how it’s being adequately treated. That’s why the industry needs a comprehensive plan for tracking all water used in operation, including wastewater. Also, after a well has been fracked, fluids flow back up the well into open pits and centralized impoundments on the surface. It’s simply not safe to have toxic fluids released into our air, so these pits and impoundments should be banned. Furthermore, the industry should set a standard of using closed-loop systems for collecting, reusing, and transporting waste fluids. It’s the safest way to store and reuse water on-site.


5. Mechanical integrity of the well casing: Faulty casing could harm public lands and people’s drinking water. Well construction should reflect the highest technological advancements to fully protect public and private drinking water sources.


6. Compliance with existing requirements: Companies should follow the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) immediately.

Our public lands shouldn't be sacrificed, nor should the gas and oil industry get a free pass to pollute our lands. Tell BLM that protecting our public health and land from fracking is the most important measure for any proposed rules.

-- Deb Nardone, Director of the Beyond Natural Gas Campaign

Pedaling to Prosperity

Americans save $4.6 billion per year by biking instead of driving -- and here's the data to prove it (pdf).

Today, the Sierra Club, the League of American Bicyclists, and National Council of La Raza released new data highlighting the tremendous economic benefits of bicycling and its importance as a safe transportation choice that should be available to every U.S. resident.

More Americans are choosing to bicycle for transportation, but government funding of safe bicycling projects is not keeping up. Though biking and walking account for 12 percent of all trips in the U.S., these transportation modes receive only 1.6 percent of federal transportation spending—far less than their fair share.

The fact sheet release coincides with today's National Bike to Work Day, when millions of U.S. residents participate in hundreds of events across the country, showcasing bicycles as a healthy, affordable and efficient form of transportation.

Among the new and key data highlighted in the fact sheet:

• Bicyclists in the U.S. save $4.6 billion per year by riding, instead of driving.
• If American drivers replaced just one four-mile car trip with a bike each week for the whole year, it would save more than 2 billion gallons of gas.
• From 2001 to 2009, Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans took up biking at faster rates than other Americans, representing 21 percent of all bike trips in the U.S. in 2009.

Bottom line, biking not only saves individuals money -- the average annual operating cost of a bicycle is $308  versus $8,220 for the average car -- but it reduces America's dependence on oil and protects our health and environment from dirty oil pollution.

It's simple: when we ride instead of drive, we save some major dough, and we help the climate.   

Click here to check out the fact sheet.

-- Rachel Butler, Sierra Club's Green Transportation Campaign

Wind Energy at a Crossroads

Here's a look at why extending the Production Tax Credit for the wind energy sector is so crucial. "Gas and oil had a production tax credit for 70 or 80 years. That's what launched them and get them into place.... Wind has had it for a few years now and it ends at the end of this year. If you're a manufacturer of wind turbine parts, you're done making parts now."

Coal Use Drops to Record Lows While Clean Energy Soars

It's amazing how much can change in a year. At this time in 2011, we were testing our hair for mercury as a way to encourage the EPA to adopt strong mercury pollution protections – which the agency did. I was also celebrating generating my first clean kilowatt of energy from brand new solar panels on my home.

A mere one year later, some jaw-dropping numbers have just come in: In the first quarter of 2012, coal made up just 36 percent of U.S. electricity generation – down from nearly 45 percent from the same period in 2011. That's a 9 percent drop in U.S. coal use in just one year.

The report, released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), had even more bad news for big polluters. Electricity generation from coal may drop another 14 percent this year. The EIA also believes coal production will decline 10 percent in 2012.

Meanwhile, wind energy is thriving. In the first quarter of 2012, the U.S. installed 1,695 megawatts of wind, one of the industry's best quarters ever, up 53 percent from the same time last year, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). Wind projects are creating jobs and economic opportunity across the country, with 32 new projects installed in 17 states in the first quarter alone.

Plugging into the Focus

Last week, I had fun test-driving the Ford Focus Electric, which goes on sale this month in California, New York, and New Jersey -- and in other markets later this year.  Like the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi i-MiEV, the other full battery electric vehicles I’ve had the chance to ride, it had a smooth and quiet feel with powerful pick-up. One of the exciting benefits of the Focus plug-in is its shorter charging time.  It takes just over three hours to charge from empty using a level-two charger, and it travels up to 100 miles per charge.

Consumers will also benefit from the plug-in Focus' 10 year battery warranty, longer than the eight-year battery warranty offered by other manufacturers. The base price tag, at $39,200, is more expensive than the Leaf and the i-MiEV and similar to the Chevy Volt, but the $7,500 federal tax credit is available for all models.

What fascinated me most about the plug-in Focus was what was possible with the MyFord Mobile app. Not only does it allow you to heat or cool the vehicle before you get inside it  -- conserving your state of charge -- but it will also show you directions to your destination through your vehicle navigation program and let you know what charging stations are available along the way. Additionally, it will tell you how you can save emissions and/or money by charging your vehicle at off-peak times.

Getting it Right

Metro Atlanta (and Georgia) can do better -- that's why Sierra Club's Georgia Chapter opposes ballot measures that will fund transportation projects set to come before Georgia's voters in July. The Chapter noted that its decision to oppose the measures -- Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST) -- in 11 of the state's regions was easy; the decision to oppose the T-SPLOST for the Atlanta region was more difficult and therefore the Sierra Club backed up its decision with a detailed Plan-B.

While the Sierra Club notes that no plan is perfect, the Chapter leaders concluded that the list of projects that the Atlanta transportation ballot measure would fund was flawed to the point of outweighing its benefits. Concerns range from a lack of a cohesive vision for the area's transportation system, a failure to have an equitable and representative regional transit governance in place, a failure to address the core need of the existing transit infrastructure, and that even transit projects that the Club supports in concept are vaguely defined and underfunded.

The Chapter is calling for voters to hold out for Plan B to stop Atlanta's transportation future from heading in the wrong direction, and questions tax booster's claim that this must be passed because it's the only option. The Sierra Club points out "that there is indeed great potential for an alternative plan that achieves meaningful progress on commute alternatives for Georgians without needlessly subsidizing another wave of sprawl." It is hard to make a tough decision on a ballot measure that includes transit funding. As my colleague, Colleen Kiernan, notes in her op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this is not a first for the Club:

A major American city faces a hotly debated referendum to expand its road and transit network. The local business community is solidly behind it, claiming that passage is vital to the region’s economic competitiveness. Meanwhile, a motley group of community organizations, including the state chapter of the Sierra Club, are opposing the measure.

The reaction to this opposition from proponents is fierce. "There is no Plan B!" they loudly proclaim. "This is the only chance we'll have for a generation!" others cry. "The political climate won't allow anything better!"

This may sound like Atlanta today, but the city in question is in fact Seattle, and the year is 2007. That city's "Roads and Transit" referendum, an awkward mixture of popular transit projects and sprawl-inducing road construction, would eventually go down to defeat at the polls.

Despite predictions that another chance was a generation away, a Plan B was put to voters the very next year, this time focused entirely on expanding and enhancing the region's SoundTransit rail and bus network — without the massive road expansion. The 2008 "SoundTransit 2" initiative passed handily, and Seattle is now actively building out an ambitious regional transit vision.

We can look further back to 1998, when the Club's San Francisco Bay Chapter opposed Measure B, a transportation ballot measure that was similar to those in Atlanta and Seattle. When the ballot measure failed, the then head of one of the involved transit agencies (AC Transit) said optimistically, "It just means we have to try and try and try again until we get it right. We'll fine-tune Measure B and put it back on the ballot."

And that's what happened. Two years later an improved Measure B passed Colleen's op-ed notes, "While the tax would fund initial segments of some popular transit projects like the Beltline, every new track-mile of light rail built would be matched by 16 lane-miles of road expansion — enough asphalt to cover Turner Field more than 200 times."

For the Sierra Club that was too much of a bad thing. Like San Francisco and Seattle, Atlanta can get this right. This position has disappointed some and created a vigorous debate. But we will continue to work to increase transportation choices that will help Americans literally move beyond oil -- in Atlanta and everywhere.

-- Ann Mesnikoff, Director of the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

The Freedom Train: Canadian First Nations Ride to Stop Tar Sands

Drums and prayer songs, dances and garden-grown gifts greet riders on the Freedom Train wherever they stop on their journey across Canada. The riders represent the Yinka Dene Alliance and other First Nations groups who want the crude oil transporter Enbridge to hear their message: Our people have declared your tar sands pipeline project illegal. We have banned you from our land. We have rejected your hollow promises of jobs and profits. Respect our existence or expect our resistance.

The alliance fears, though, that the Canadian government will ignore First Nations law and help Enbridge push the project through. The riders, indigenous women and men aged 15 to 72, set off from their traditional territories near the Pacific coast bound for Toronto's financial district, thousands of miles away. The journey is part of the years-long movement of resistance to Enbridge's proposed "Northern Gateway Pipeline" that would transport tar sands oil from Alberta to British Columbia's Pacific coast, where it would be loaded onto huge tankers that then must navigate precarious and stunningly pristine waterways on the way to market. 

In Toronto, the Freedom Train riders will lead a rally as Enbridge convenes its annual shareholders meeting. This will put Enbridge on notice that the First Nations have banned the Northern Gateway Pipeline from their land, in accordance with First Nations law, and that the company should not attempt legislative acrobatics to push the project forward.

The Freedom Train was inspired by two First Nations struggles that are now at key turning points: the effort to assert the right of self-government, and the effort to avoid environmental disasters on First Nations lands. The alliance is especially concerned about the Northern Gateway pipeline project because it would transport tar sands oil, which is especially corrosive and much more likely to cause a spill than conventional crude. It is also far more hazardous to human health, contains far higher levels of heavy metals, and is far more difficult to clean up when it does spill. These facts were undeniably confirmed after repeated spills in the United States, including the Kalamazoo disaster of 2010 and the Yellowstone River spill of 2011.