Erin Allweiss's Blog: Moving Beyond Oil

House Passes Stimulus and Funds Transit

2009-01-28T23:28:41Z

I'm happy to report that the House not only passed the stimulus, but it passed the amendment introduced by Rep. Nadler (D-NY) to increase transit funding by $3 billion. This means a total of $12 billion for transit in the stimulus.

Christopher Conkey at the WSJ reports on this, and Deron Lovaas, NRDC's federal transportation policy director, notes in his blog that "Congress is clearly catching up with public support for more and cleaner transportation choices."

It's exciting to see both Republicans and Democrats come forward in favor of transportation funding. To take a page out of President Obama's book, this isn't a red issue or a blue issue. Investing in public transportation is simply a smart investment with high returns. In fact, transit investments create 19 percent more jobs per dollar than building new roads or bridges.

Also, giving people more transportation options - particularly public transit options - is a surefire way to reduce our dependence on oil and cut back on global warming pollution. Public transportation saves nearly 2 billion gallons of fuel each year, and produces less than a third of the pollution of comparable passenger car travel.

This is a good start to improving America's infrastructure and laying the groundwork for our nation's clean energy economy. The Senate is expected to pass its version of the economic recovery bill next week, and I'll keep you updated on transportation and other green developments...

Oil Shale: Ten Questions, No Answers

2008-10-16T15:32:04Z

On the heels of Congress lifting the moratorium on leasing lands to develop oil shale, Rand released a study that is as interesting for what's in it as for what's been left out.

RAND, a renowned non-profit that provides analyses on key policy issues, recently conducted a comprehensive study of the impacts and viability of all the dirty fuels: tar sands, coal-to-liquids, and oil shale. Interestingly, when confronted with the inherent unknowns that define the currently non-existent oil shale industry, RAND chose not to attempt any further exploration of this key dirty fuel. RAND experts state in their report:

Although oil shale is also an important potential unconventional fossil resource, we do not address it in this report because fundamental uncertainty remains about the technology that could ultimately be used for large-scale extraction, as well as about its cost and environmental implications. The omission from this report of renewable fuel options and other propulsion technologies should not be interpreted as a conclusion that the fossil-based options are superior to others.

The inability to examine oil shale and address critical questions about its costs and environmental impacts speaks to a greater problem regarding this nation's emerging commitment to develop this resource - how can we proceed with creating regulations for an industry when we do not know what technology will be used and cannot identify its consequences?

According to an expert at NRDC, the following are questions that cannot be answered conclusively by anyone associated with the oil shale industry - yet must be if we are to proceed with the development of this fuel:

How much energy will it take to extract fuel from oil shale? Massive power generation will be required to extract the fuel out of the ground. How much and what form it will take - coal generation, nuclear - is something no one can answer.
What will be the impacts to climate change? The latest estimates are that oil shale production and combustion together will produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as current conventional fuels. It may be more.
How will the petroleum products in oil shale actually be extracted? At this point, squeezing oil out of rock at a profitable rate is nothing short of alchemy. We cannot even begin to understand if this feat is an economically realistic proposition.
What will be the economic costs to the region and the nation as a whole? U.S. taxpayers already are on the hook for over two billion dollars of federally backed subsidies for oil shale, as was recently mandated by the bailout bill. This is money set aside for an industry that does not even exist yet. The last time an oil shale industry was attempted in the U.S., in 1982, a bubble collapsed all investment; the impacts of that bubble are still felt to this day in local communities.
What will the impacts be to the air quality of the West? Nearly all of the oil shale resources in the nation reside in the western United States, known for its pristine air quality. It is unknown what an oil shale industry would do to the clean skies that define the region.
The same goes for water; what will happen to the clean water upon which much of the West depends? Oil shale production could contaminate the Colorado River Basin, rendering it unusable for many of the agricultural users who depend on its clean waters.
How much water will be required to produce oil shale? General estimates have shown that for every barrel of oil shale produced, three or more barrels of equivalent water would be required. This shift of water usage could have massive impacts in this arid region where practically every drop of water is more valuable than gold.
What will be the health impacts to those who live in the region? As we've seen with the proliferation of oil and gas drilling in the West, fossil fuel extraction dirties the air, water, and soil - causing unintended impacts to the health and wellbeing of the region's residents.
What will happen to the fish and wildlife of the region? All of these impacts will probably render the land that currently teems with wildlife utterly inhospitable.
What will happen to the wildlands impacted by oil shale drilling? Government estimates show that over two million acres of federally owned land would be subject to oil shale development in the wilds of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Oil shale drilling would require that any vegetation be scraped bare and hilly land would have to be leveled. It is difficult to imagine what the region will look like when the roads and pipelines necessary for oil shale production crisscross the landscape.

With our economy in a state of crisis, now is not the time to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on dirty fuels like oil shale, coal to liquids, and tar sands. Now is the time to make wise investments that will spur a green economy and create millions of new jobs. In excluding oil shale from its report, RAND suggests that we need these questions answered before we can consider oil shale, let alone start investing in its future.

Shale Baby Shale? The clock strikes 12.

2008-09-30T22:13:19Z

At midnight tonight, the moratorium banning offshore drilling will expire, allowing oil companies to drill as close as three miles from our shores. The energy debate devolved into a narrow argument over drilling, which my colleague Rob Perks addresses in his blog.

The calls for "drill baby drill" provided enough distraction for some members of Congress to push through the expiration of another moratorium - this one on oil shale. According to many of our experts at NRDC, the potential impact of this development could be far worse than drilling for oil.

Oil shale, which is found in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, releases four times the amount of global warming pollution as conventional fuel. It can be converted into liquid petroleum and then transportation fuel, but only after being heated to 900 degrees for five years or more. It's also a technology that is largely untested.

Jad Mouawad writes about oil shale in the New York Times blog Green Inc.

It is mind boggling that instead of investing in our nation's green infrastructure, Big Oil allies in Washington would work to lease more than 2 million acres of public land to develop this energy intensive fuel.

Many in the House and Senate worked to keep this important moratorium in place. Senators Reid and Byrd offered an amendment to prevent the Department of Interior from leasing federal land for oil shale production. Although the bill to keep the ban failed by 8 votes, it sets a mark for the 111th Congress and our new president to reinstate this vital moratorium and start investing in a clean energy future that will create jobs and jumpstart our economy.

Keeping an Eye on the Energy Debate

2008-09-16T23:57:37Z

Right now, the House is in full debate over an energy bill that has some good and some bad energy policies.

You can read the statement NRDC's President issued today in response to this bill: http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080916.asp

Among the good provisions are energy efficiency codes for buildings and incentives for solar and wind energy. Among the bad is oil shale, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet.

Having worked on Capitol Hill, I understand the compromise that went into crafting this bill and the difficult decisions that must be made. But certain decisions should be easy: we should invest in clean, renewable energy, not more of the same policies that got us into this mess. Right? Wrong.

This legislation is the result of policy being hijacked by politics, and it is clear that Big Oil paid big bucks to sway the politics in their favor. According to the nonpartisan group Public Campaign Action Fund, Big Oil spent more than $200 million on advertising in the first six months of 2008. They fed off the fears of Americans forced to cope with rising energy costs and distorted the facts.

Oil companies know we can not drill our way out of this problem, and even Phyllis Martin, a senior analyst at the U.S. Department of Energy, says they are "wrong to say it'll have a big impact on prices."

Yet as we watch the House debate unfold, we should look for allies of Big Oil to offer even more drilling and other bad alternatives. They will do this through something called a "Motion to Recommit," which in real people's terms means they will vote to amend the bill. This would be an unfortunate outcome, and Americans deserve better energy policies that will move our country forward.

Oil Spills, Hurricanes and a Renewable Future

2008-09-13T23:06:30Z

Hurricane Katrina’s third anniversary fell on the heels of the Democratic convention, the start of the Republican convention, and in the midst of Hurricane Gustav. Now we are faced with Ike while, on the floors of Congress, the debate continues over how to address our nation’s energy needs. While those allied with Big Oil argue we should drill and only drill, there are serious consequences for expanding offshore drilling in certain areas.

As a native of New Orleans, I feel a deep connection to this issue. Having returned dozens of times to the city since Katrina, my most vivid memory is of St. Bernard Parish, an area adjacent to the Lower Ninth Ward, which was devastated by an oil spill. On my first visit post Katrina, I drove with my family through the wreckage. The floodwaters had lifted a storage tank, spilling more than 25,000 of its 65,000 barrels of mixed crude oil. The spill destroyed 1700 homes and thousands of lives.

While some argue that drilling is safe, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone resulted in 125 spills from platforms, rigs and pipelines, totaling 685,000 gallons. The memory of Hurricane Katrina, and the neighborhoods and wetlands destroyed by oil spills, are grave reminders of the worst consequences of offshore drilling.

As we look to drill off the coasts of Florida, the Carolinas, and Georgia – all members of the infamous “Hurricane Alley” – St. Bernard Parish should serve as a warning.

Three years after Katrina, parts of St. Bernard Parish are still an oil slice.

Three years after Katrina, the Government Accountability Office released a report saying that the city of New Orleans is not even close to being done cleaning up its mess, including the oil residue that cakes parts of the city.

Three years after Katrina, more hurricanes are brewing. Last month, Hurricane Fay hit the coast of Florida not once, not twice, but three times. Early this month, Hurricane Gustav pounded the Gulf shores, forcing my family and millions of others to flee New Orleans and surrounding areas. Now, Hurricane Ike is gaining speed, sending oil companies scrambling.

Exposing parts of our coastal communities to deadly risk just isn’t worth it, yet congressional allies of oil companies believe we should drill, drill, drill and drill more. What we need instead is to invest in clean, homegrown American energy that will end our dependence on foreign oil without destroying our coasts.

This week the House of Representatives unveiled a bill that would invest in renewable energy technologies. Although it would allow for drilling off our coasts, states can choose to opt-out of the drilling. Most importantly, the bill contains important provisions for renewable electricity standards, green building codes, and investments in wind and solar energy – neither of which can spill or run out. This will not only insulate us from global oil spikes, but it will create millions of green jobs to jumpstart the Gulf Coast’s devastated economy.

Unfortunately, Big Oil’s congressional allies want to make this bill just about drilling. Right now, they are planning to change the bill, potentially by stripping the good, renewable energy provisions and allowing drilling everywhere - even in vulnerable, Hurricane-prone areas. It will be to the detriment of America’s energy future if these provisions are removed, especially because America is ready now for bold leadership on a better way forward. Congress needs to make sure this bill does more than just advance our addiction to oil.

The 685,000 gallons of oil spilled in New Orleans is one of the many reasons we should not simply risk our hurricane prone coasts. With the memories of Katrina still fresh and engrained in the American conscience, let’s consider these consequences and move forward with investments in clean, renewable energy.