Compass

First Senate Attack on EPA Comes from Barrasso of Wyoming

And here it is - the first Senate attack on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Air Act authority to protect public health and the environmental from global warming pollution just hit in the Senate. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced the misleadingly named "Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act."

This bill takes Senator Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) two year delay idea a step further by banning EPA carbon pollution standards altogether (unless granted permission by Congress).

Stay tuned - we'll have more on this as it develops.

I'll Have the Can, Hold the Cups

Somewhere over the Grand Canyon at 30,000 feet -- I was sipping from a plastic cup of cool water. The flight attendant swept by in short order with a plastic bag to collect the "trash." Not an hour later, along comes the metal cart (keep your knees and elbows in if you're on the aisle) with another drink service, and another hard plastic cup, including the funky-smelling, sandpaper-like logoed napkin. So what was wrong with the previous ones? I'd sipped from the cup which was completely unscathed, and never touched the napkin. I would have been happy to hold onto both for an hour to re-use for the refill. Even if I switched to soda, so what?

Photo courtesy of Russell J. Smith via Creative Commons license.

Apparently this nonsensical system is so ingrained in the flight attendant's routine that my request to NOT use a new plastic cup and just give me the can of cranberry juice upset the apple cart, so to speak. With a look of mild disdain, she slammed a fresh cup onto my little tray along with the full can. Well excuuuse me for trying to be green!?

This scenario is played out millions of times per day throughout the world. The net effect is untold tonnage of plastic and waste paper, some that will be recycled and probably even more that will end up in landfill. Some finding their way into waterways and oceans. As we know, clear hard plastics can last seemingly for decades as they just don't degrade. What an unnecessary tragedy of anti-sustainability. One that seemingly would be so easy to fix.

Powering India with Rice Husks? An Interview with Ratnesh Yadav from Husk Power Systems

Ratnesh Yadav of Husk Power Systems, a social enterprise working to empower Bihar (one of India's poorest states), was gracious enough to take time out of his extremely busy schedule to deliver a simple and powerful message: Traditional electrification routes have failed; Decentralized, off-grid renewable energy is the need of the hour.

He backs this bold statement with the fact that Husk Power Systems now delivers renewable energy for a capital expenditure of 1$/watt - the lowest in the world. Indeed according to Husk Power, India has enough rice husk to generate 27 GW of electricity. To put that in perspective - it is roughly the size of all the remaining coal fired ultra mega power plants (UMPPs) in the government pipeline. Read on to find out how Husk Power plans to make its mantra, From Darkness to Light, a reality.

Give us a basic rundown of your business model...

Ratnesh Yadav: Husk Power Systems builds, owns, operates small biomass gasifiers using waste rice husk as fuel to produce electricity. Then using its own network of wires that electricity is supplied to near by villages on pay for use basis. There are about 125 thousand unelectrified villages in India that are dependent on kerosene lamps or diesel generator sets which are costly, polluting, dangerous and unhealthy.

This Week's Blogosphere Soup

A quick review of this past week's happenings in the blog world

Sometimes the State of the Union commentary reminds me of high school gossip -- like teenagers who walk around with their secret crush. "Does he/she like me? Did he/she mention my name?!" The SOTU is a similar game of whether certain issues and agendas get any sort of mention. And Politico is a top-notch, one-stop shop for such observations. In terms of what you and I care about (i.e. energy/climate change):

WHAT OBAMA SAID: The president called for a "clean energy standard" of 80 percent by 2035 and an end to (roughly $4 billion worth of) tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. He also named-dropped: high-speed rail, plug-in vehicles, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, wind, solar, biofuels and ... salmon.

WHAT OBAMA DIDN'T: There was no mention of climate change, global warming, cap-and-trade, EPA regulations, the Clean Air Act or the BP oil spill.

It seems like Obama would rather go to the prom with a "clean energy standard" than "climate change." Anyway, for my dose of SOTU punditry, I read Easterbrook's blog, Chait's blog, Nate Silver, and Krugman, who gave the speech an emphatic "meh." David Roberts, however, read (or listened) between the lines and liked what he heard.

He said we should shoot for 80 percent "clean energy" by 2035. In that he includes renewables, nuclear, "clean coal," and natural gas. But think about it: what would that exclude? It's pretty much everything except dirty coal. What Obama is calling on Congress to do is to reduce the amount of dirty coal America uses, from its current level -- around 45 percent -- to 20 percent.

(Note: I'm assuming by "clean coal" Obama means coal plants that capture and bury the majority of their carbon emissions. There are currently no such plants operating in the U.S. All coal is dirty coal, at least for now, and most experts expect that to be true for another decade at least.)

Opening up the domestic "clean energy race" to a wider field of competitors is smart both substantively and strategically.

But Roberts wants the words "climate change" mentioned by the president.

Here is the Sierra Club's official response to the Tuesday speech.

Other things happened this week in the blogosphere:

Working Internationally for Clean Energy

Sierra Club and its domestic and international allies - including dozens of non-governmental organizations from Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America - are working on an international campaign to promote renewable energy and energy access for the poor. This campaign aims to ensure that financial foreign assistance provided through international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank, does not end up supporting fossil fuel projects that do not have as their sole purpose energy access for the poor.

Access to modern energy should be viewed not simply as electricity generation or connections, but as increased access to the services that are provided, such as lighting, heating and cooking. The World Bank group recognizes that traditional centralized energy systems such as grid expansion are often not the most efficient, effective, or sustainable means by which to expand the poor's access to clean, reliable, and sustainable energy services.

Better Alternatives to Liquid Coal

Tom Hicks, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy “has serious reservations… about the conclusions in the report” sent to Congress earlier this week by the RAND Corporation. The report looked at the military’s efforts to develop alternative fuels. Among the questionable conclusions: liquid coal is the most promising near-term alternative to oil.

The truth is that liquid coal is plagued with economic and environmental downsides from the time the coal is mined until long after the liquid is burned. Turning coal into liquid transportation fuel is hugely inefficient, consuming massive amounts of both water and energy. This inefficient conversion process makes liquid coal highly polluting; liquid coal produces double the carbon pollution of regular gasoline. Even if, and this is a big if, the carbon released during the production was somehow captured and stored as assumed in the RAND study, liquid coal would still release comparable amounts of carbon pollution as regular gasoline, with the added impacts of increased coal mining. Additionally, the carbon capture and storage process remains unproven and highly controversial, with unanswered concerns about the possibility of and liability for leaks and groundwater contamination, among other problems.

Because liquid coal requires vast inputs of coal, replacing a mere 10% of our nation’s transportation fuels with liquid coal would require an increase in coal mining of approximately 40%. Coal mining in our country already relies on destructive techniques like mountaintop removal mining.  Destructive mining practices put communities at risk by contaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanently reshaping and damaging the landscape.  And, despite industry claims to the contrary, reclamation of coal mines and clean up of coal wastes only leads to other environmental problems.

An increase of coal mining on a scale this large would jeopardize the long-term prospects for coal.  Doubling or tripling our use of coal would quickly deplete our reserves. 

Making liquid coal also requires a large amount of water. About 3.5 gallons of water are needed for every gallon of transportation fuel produced, threatening our limited water supplies. The potential for water shortages is even greater in the West, where water is scarcer, and where unfortunately there has been a greater interest in building coal-to-liquid plants.

Clearly the Navy has it right. The way forward for our military and our country is not spending billions to subsidize a massively polluting fossil fuel industry, but instead to invest in renewable energy technologies. These clean energy technologies have benefits, like job creation and energy security, that reach far outside of our armed forces.

-- Kate Colarulli, Dirty Fuels, Beyond Coal Campaign 

A Deadly Trade-Off: Toxic Dispersants or Ecological Damage

Earlier this month, the National Oil Spill Commission released its findings related to systematic problems within the oil industry and the response to the BP Oil Disaster by agencies and industry. One focus of the Commission was to look into BP and EPA's decision to utilize dispersants as a method to "clean up" the oil in the Gulf of Mexico waters.

In May 2010, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson gave the okay for the use of dispersants to help clean the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP used the dispersant Corexit, developed by Exxon in 1994, and banned in European countries like England. Corexit works by breaking apart oil in water, similar to dishwashing soap, transforming the oil into smaller droplets that could be consumed by hydrocarbon-eating bacteria. However, Corexit and other similar dispersants can be toxic to ocean organisms.

Administrator Jackson's controversial decision came under a lot of criticism because of the unprecedented volume of dispersants. The use of dispersants in a subsea application has never been tested before, nor was it legal under the Clean Water Act. Essentially using a toxin to fight a toxin, creating what Rep. Edward Markey described as a "toxic stew", turned the Gulf of Mexico into a giant chemistry experiment. Jackson acknowledges none of the testing done prior to the incident was extensive, and didn't review the long-term effects. The EPA has plans to test the effects of dispersants; however, by the time test results are in, it may be too late. In response to criticism, the EPA issued a directive ordering BP to scale back the use of dispersants. Throughout the process, BP ignored orders from the EPA claiming "if you're going to tie our hands, then we don't own this spill." (BP Vice President David Rainy)

It's on Congress to Implement BP Oil Commission Recommendations

On January 12, 2011, The National Oil Spill Commission released its final report on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The Commission was tasked to provide thorough analysis and recommendations in the aftermath of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The Commission was charged by President Obama to determine the cause of the oil disaster and to help improve the nation's ability to respond to future disasters and recommend reforms to make offshore energy production safer.

We commend the Commission for their comprehensive and timely investigation into the BP oil disaster. We are pleased with many of the recommendations made by the Commission, especially those that demonstrated the need for community involvement and systematic change within industry and government agencies.

Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference Coming Soon

Now in its fourth year, the 2011 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference — February 8-10 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. — is the nation's leading forum on ideas and strategies to build a green economy that creates jobs, reduces global warming, and preserves America's economic and environmental security. The 2011 Conference will bring together thousands of labor, environmental, business, elected, and community leaders.

 This year's Conference highlights successful state and local initiatives, emerging and growing green sectors, successful work development programs, and model partnerships with government. Together they demonstrate the breadth of the coalition working to build a green economy and to create the good jobs that come along with it.

The 2010 Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference drew 3,000 people. Keynote and plenary speakers included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Governors Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania and Bill Ritter of Colorado. Speakers this year include Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley.

If you are interested in attending the Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference, click here.

-- Rachel Ackoff, Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program

 

Obama's SOTU Confirmed Push for Korea FTA

On the campaign trail, then-Candidate Obama had a strong fair trade message. He promised to promote 21st century trade agreements that include strong, binding environmental and labor provisions. He pledged to limit (pdf) the oversized rights of foreign investors to sue governments directly in international trade tribunals by specifically committing to "exempt any law or regulation written to protect public safety or promote the public interest." In sum, his trade agenda was in line with his overall platform of change –- he called for changing the old trade model.

After relative silence on trade in his first two years in office, President Obama has become a vocal proponent of the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) after updating the deal first reached with Seoul by President George W. Bush. In his State of the Union address yesterday, he identified passing KORUS as a top priority for his administration. On the same day on the Hill, the Ways & Means Committee held a hearing on all three pending trade deals with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

In his renegotiation of KORUS, President Obama did not reign in the expansive rights granted to foreign investors and corporations as he promised. As in past FTAs, KORUS allows investors to directly challenge public interest laws and regulations for compensation before international tribunals, bypassing domestic courts. We cannot let President Obama and Congress take us down the road of the same, failed trade policy of the past.

-- Rachel Ackoff, Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program