Josh Mogerman's Blog: Solving Global Warming

Rebranding the Rebranding…tar sands are dirty whatever you call them

2009-11-13T22:41:11Z

Ahh, the Canadian tar sands industry. Unhappy that the dirty oil criticisms of their industry are sticking they are to once again change the name of their product rather than fix it.

If it wasn't so irritating, it would be laughable. The industry objects to the use of the term "tar sands" and all the negative baggage that comes with it. Never mind the fact that they used the term tar sands for decades. Never mind the fact that tar sands, actually descriptive of what they are digging and steaming out of the ground at huge environmental expense. The term has been laden with negative connotations, so the industry invented a new term for their product as part of a $25 million PR campaign to clean up the image of their oil.

To their credit, the campaign has been successful in one key aspect. Much to my chagrin, I speak to journalists who have adopted the industry's shiny new term, "oil sands," on a regular basis. But according to a Financial Post story today, entitled "'Oil sands?' Bite your tongue," some in the dirty oil industry don't think that the re-branding goes far enough and wish to clean up the language even more. From the article:

First they were tar sands. Then they were oil sands. Now? Enhanced oil projects. At least according to En-Cana Corp. and its oil-sands spinoff, Cenovus Energy Inc.

The pair want to distinguish their oil-sands operations, which employ the underground and more carbon-intensive steam-assisted gravity (SAGD) drainage method, from the more aesthetically offensive open-pit mining efforts that are accompanied by deadly tailings ponds. As a result, the two firms have ditched the term "oil sands" from their lexicon and replaced it with "enhanced oil projects" or just "oil projects."

"We just thought it was more representative of the nature of Cenovus' assets to describe them as such so that there wasn't any confusion [between SAGD and mining projects]," Mr. Ferguson said after EnCana and Cenovus unveiled their preliminary 2010 budgets.

Avoid confusion? Confusion is the name of the game for this industry, which uses euphemisms like "the patch," modernization, and tailings ponds to downplay the damage that they are doing. But more importantly, it looks a bit like they are co-opting or hiding behind the name for a different oil industry technology. The term "enhanced oil" is already associated with "enhanced oil recovery," which relates to the use of pressurized gas to access oil deep in existing wells. It is a technology already in use in the United States and just last week the Midwest Governor's Association put out suggested regulations and a plan to pipe CO2 from coal-fired power plants to the American Gulf coast where it would be sequestered while revitalizing existing oil wells.

It seems an obvious effort to dilute the differentiation of bitumen from more traditional petroleum products.

"Oil projects?" What does that even mean? (I guess that is the point.)

And "enhanced oil?" What is it enhanced with? I mean, besides tons of sulfur, heavy metals, and all that extra global warming pollution?

Words matter. And thankfully, there are plenty of folks out there who agree. The Financial Post article quotes an Associate Professor from the University of Alberta's school of business:

"Rebranding works best when it comes with a lot of changes," he said. "Taking the exact same product and giving it a new name and without explaining what the value is or how it has changed isn't likely to be very effective."

And despite protestations to the contrary, the tar sands industry just hasn't made the sort of changes that are likely to convince anyone that the world's largest industrial project is anything but dangerous and polluting.

The companies pushing for this change in the energy lexicon are doing so to represent a difference in technology----piping steam into the ground vs. strip mining. The steam folks seem to feel that their products are unnecessarily tainted by images of the massive tar sands strip mines that literally go to the horizon in parts of Alberta. Instead, their technology melts the bitumen where it sits in the ground. But this extraction technique is rife with problems too. It pollutes more water and consumes significantly more energy than the strip mines; actually compounding the global warming pollution and water contamination problems that are at the core of concerns over this fuel source. An effort to somehow wrap themselves in green, or intentionally opaque, language is simply a marketing excercise to alter perceptions and avoid fixing their product.

Imagine the late, great TV pitchman Billy Mays shouting, "New enhanced oil projects. They're tar sands, but with SAGD to make them even cleaner! And now, they're strip mine free with even more greenhouses gases for you! If you call in the next 15 minutes we will include some super-absorbent "shammies" too! They are great for sopping up contaminated water tables..."

Show-Me State Skeptics: Convention Clouds Missouri Energy Advances

2009-08-13T18:16:09Z

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted that a "veritable who's who of climate change skeptics and contrarians" will be gathering at a convention in Springfield, MO today.

Speaking as a one-time resident of the Show-Me State, that news is disappointing enough---but the fact that this school of skeptics is being funded by a member of the Missouri Air Conservation Commission is even more of a drag. After all, that's the state's seven person panel overseeing air pollution permits and enforcement.

Apparently, the gathering "will highlight the fallacy of anthropogenic global warming proponents' apocalyptic dogma."

Assumedly, by proponents spewing dogma they mean... scientists?

Or, at least scientists not on the long-ago debunked list of 700 "dissenters" that one of the prominent skeptics flaunts in the P-D article... Ummm, that would be the vast and overwhelming majority of credible voices on this subject who agree that climate change is a problem.

Whatever. It's a free country they are free to gather and shout about the science until they are blue in the face. Clearly, they don't represent the majority of Missourians. But the noise from the skeptic convention and the likely invasion of "energy citizens" sent to disrupt public discussions of the climate bill do no favors to a state that has much to gain from America's shift to a clean energy economy.

In July, we published a report on Missouri's energy sector that made some interesting points. I was surprised by how perfectly poised the state is to be a "homegrown energy" leader. With energy-hungry St. Louis and Kansas City sandwiching big chunks of windy and fertile farmland, there seems to be the right mix to make something special happen in the Gateway to the West. But you wonder if they are poised to do anything about it with climate change deniers in leadership positions---that's not exactly the profile for folks likely to put the construct in place for wind, solar, and biomass industries to thrive.

Thankfully, those are not the folks we are talking to in Jefferson City, where NRDC has worked with policy makers to develop an energy future that can do right by Missouri's economy, energy needs, and the climate. And there has been encouraging news of late with the passage of a renewable energy standard and a renewed commitment by electric utilities to implement cost-effective energy efficiency.

The New York Times Green Inc blog reported today that Missouri's wind power supply grew far more quickly than that of any other state in the second quarter of this year. I hope we continue to hear more about these advances rather than the advocates of ambiguity who are working hard to make us all step backwards.

Two Views of Tar Sands: Dirty and Dirtiest

2009-07-24T00:52:17Z

In an odd quirk of timing, two competing visions of the Canadian tar sands hit the media today.

I was pleased to see the announcement that the Society for Environmental Journalists had chosen Andrew Nikiforuk's "Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent" for this year's Rachel Carson Environmental Book Award. The SEJ site explains:

Andrew Nikiforuk paints an alarming picture in northern Alberta, Canada: International oil companies clear cut huge swaths of boreal forest, rake off the boggy soil, scoop up giant shovelfuls of oil sands with the largest machines on earth and use copious amounts of boiling water to separate tarry bitumen from the sand so it can be turned into petroleum for your car in Kansas. The toxic residue that comes off the sands is stored behind gigantic dikes that leak, and downstream people and fish are sick.

It's a great choice.

Seemingly less of a good choice was the Albertan government's decision to put out a pair of studies today that basically reinforce much of what Nikiforuk's book describes.

Oh sure, in typical Albertan form, there is clumsy greenwashing with the reports attempting to cast the tar sands in a cleaner light by comparing them to the ugliness associated with Nigerian oil operations and the heavy oil from Venezuela. But in the end, despite the posturing and press releases, the reports admit that the tar sands pump out more global warming emissions than even these bottom of the barrel oil sources.

Certainly tar sands supporters will crow about their dirty fuel of choice being "not so dirty" in the media; but it is clear that where Nikiforuk's chilling nonfiction excels, the Canadian government and oil industry are a bit shaky with their storytelling...

UPDATE: Want a flavor of Nikiforuk's bracingly bleak coverage of the Tar Sands? Head over to OnEarth Magazine, NRDC's independent quarterly; his feature story ran in the magazine's Fall 2007 issue.

Canadian Author Gets a Look at Expanding Canadian Mess: Tar Sands in Indiana and Illinois

2009-05-04T21:05:43Z

Last week I had the opportunity to take a road trip to northwest Indiana. Riding shotgun was Canadian journalist and author, Andrew Nikiforuk, whose book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent is selling like hotcakes in his native country.

While he has probably seen far worse in Canada, I assumed Nikiforuk was taken aback by what he saw as we whizzed towards Gary, IN. It is a truly wondrous panorama of pollution: coal plants, refineries, steel mills, factories. They all huddle together on the southern curve of Lake Michigan in a patchwork of large-scale industrial sites.

Not long after crossing the Indiana state line we could see the unmistakable riot of pipes, machinery, and burning flares that is BP's Whiting refinery, the largest tar sands facility in the US. The smell of gasoline quickly followed. Not far down the highway we reached our destination, a refurbished bath house called the Aquatorium. Though the area beaches are still a dead ringer for Cape Cod, bath houses like the Aquatorium are remnants of a different time when northwest Indiana's beaches were a vacation Mecca, drawing tourists from around the Midwest to sunbathe and enjoy the unique living sand dunes that dot the coast. The view from the Aquatorium's beach is still gorgeous, but the hulking steel mills that loom darkly on both sides make clear the current industrial dominance in the region (see photo above). And it is a reminder that the environmental mess in the area cannot be blamed on any one facility.

But certainly one facility has drawn the ire of the public and national politicians in recent years. The drumbeat of concern over plans for increased pollution from BP has been impossible to ignore.

And that is why dozens waited for Nikiforuk in Gary, where people were eager to learn more about the source that would fuel these emissions. He described how the bitumen is mined from the tar sands in his home province of Alberta. The impact on the landscape. The scale of destruction to the forest, waterways, and air throughout the region. And the toll this has all taken on some of the nearby communities. He discussed the upgraders---facilities that take the raw tarry bitumen, separate if from the sand, and blends the mined goo with cleaner oil to make it viscous enough to pass through a pipeline. His audience stared in rapt attention, often shaking their heads with looks of concern. (Listen to this Chicago Public Radio interview to hear more in Nikiforuk's own words.)

This is because they know that the heavy metals, air pollutants, and neurotoxins that are part and parcel with bitumen is already in their community.

And more is coming.

The BP Whiting Refinery is expanding to process more of the stuff. If you read Switchboard, you know that NRDC is working with local groups to force the refinery to implement the most up-to-date environmental controls to protect the health and welfare of the folks who were sitting in that room. They all knew about the issue, but they did not know the scale. And I think they walked away with a far better understanding of what was going on around them.

Sadly, it will take longer for the rest of us to catch on. And, unfortunately, the tar sands fight is not limited to Canadians and people who live near Whiting, IN.

That's the most important part of Nikiforuk's message.

Without any public discussion or input, our energy sector is being fundamentally changed to make this stuff ubiquitous. $50 billion is being spent to expand the tar sands refining infrastructure in the United States right now. That money is being used to shift our nation's oil addiction to an even more dangerous fuel. Bitumen is not even oil---it was a long time ago, but it has since been degraded by bacteria into something far worse; a fuel source with enormously increased CO2 emissions (up to 3X those of typical petroleum products) and loads of dangerous toxins.

Without any public discussion or input, these billions of dollars will tie us to this fuel source for decades.

Without any public discussion or input we are digging our climate change hole deeper and deeper.

Think I am over-reacting? Check the coverage of a tar sands pipeline that will be running near my home town of Springfield, IL. Canada's governmental representatives in the Midwest---staff from their consulate in Chicago---had blown into town to promote the country's energy cash cow with an innocuous message: It's just a little more oil...nothing to see here. But when I talked to the writer, he admitted wondering what "oil sands" were in the first place.

As the refinery expansions and pipeline projects allow bitumen to creep further and further out, they take a little bit of pollution from northwest Indiana...and Alberta...with them.

And I assume that scares Andrew Nikiforuk way more than the drive to Gary...

Aquatorium Beach looking East - US Steel Photo via Flickr

The Money Boat: Coins, Climate Change and the Caribbean

2009-04-20T22:20:47Z

A friend who works for the monetary authority of a Caribbean island nation was in Chicago for an international money conference recently. Representatives from banking centers around the world had converged to discuss a crushing array of concerns---but these folks are particularly focused on cash.

Not cash in the abstract; but the bills and coins in your pocket right now.

And they are really worried about pennies.

According to my friend (and, apparently, the world's money makers), if you have coins sitting around your house, out of circulation, you are contributing to an international coin crisis which is forcing the world's mints to make more and more of them. And it is pricey. It costs 3 cents to stamp out each and every one of the world's lowliest coins---a serious losing proposition.

This got me wondering about my pal's island nation... I've been there a number of times and have never seen a mint... Where do the coins and bills come from?

Turns out, their money is minted in Europe. Bills are flown to the islands regularly. But coins are heavy and bulky, so they are floated in freighters annually.

Yup, there's a money boat.

My head was swimming... Given recent headlines, pirates seem a legitimate concern (hence the requirement that I not mention her nation's name or where the coin stamping takes place in this post)... After visions of sunken gold doubloons cleared my head, I got to thinking about some roundabout climate connections.

Two global warming tidbits popped into my head...the first being an earlier Switchboard post from Phil about the US Mint asking folks to spend their pennies so that the government would not have to expend so much in the way of energy and water resources to make new ones...and the second being discussions of the carbon footprint of ocean-going vessels (while they are very fuel efficient, they unfortunately use one of the dirtiest fuels around---listen to Rich Kassel on the subject).

My friend is starting a campaign similar to the U.S. Mint's, with public outreach that would attempt to get islanders to cash in their coins. I asked whether climate change would be part of the pitch---after all, living on an island, the global warming issue should help motivate her countrymen to stop hoarding coins?

The answer was surprising.

Despite the inordinate impact that climate change would likely have through sea level rises on a low lying island chain, most folks in her country are largely unaware of the issue. There is a movement afoot to change that, especially in the schools, but still engagement on the issue is limited.

So, instead, they will focus their coin campaign on the economics. And given the world economy, I guess everything really does come down to dollars and cents...

...or coins and bills anyway...

Nine Centsphoto by Jonathan Pobre via Flickr

The Tar Sands Litany: tough times for Calgary oilmen, tougher times for their PR folks…

2009-02-13T22:19:38Z

Things looked pretty rosy in Alberta last summer when oil was trading for $140/barrel. Investments flooded in from folks all over the world eager to stake their claim on the Canadian province's cash cow: tar sands.

Sure, there were some blemishes, but money talks...

But as oil prices deflated, it was a lot harder for people to ignore the environmental carnage that went along with the dirtiest oil in the world. Despite a $25 million dollar campaign of spin, propaganda, and cosmetic changes, people around the world couldn't miss or ignore a series of nasty incidents that confirmed assertions from a growing chorus on both sides of the border against the ugliness in Alberta.

So pity the oilmen---they've had a rough ride in the last six months. Prices dropped and gaffs put the troubling underbelly of the tar sands into sharper focus. In the glittering Calgary office towers that house oil giants from around the world, they were shocked (along with the Canadian government) by the global revulsion. What could have opened the world's eyes and turned so many against the tar sands?

Well, I can think of a few things off the top of my head:

Maybe it was the reaction of the United Nations' water program chief, aghast with disbelief after taking an aerial tour over the moonscaped wastelands left from tar sands strip mining. When she came back to the ground she described the world's biggest industrial project as "a slow motion oil spill," noting:

We were devastated by what we saw and smelled and experienced. The air is foul, the water is being drained and poisoned and giant tailing ponds line the Athabasca River.

Or maybe it was the recent commentary from Bishop Luc Bouchard who leads the Roman Catholic diocese that covers the region where tar sands are mined:

I am forced to conclude that the integrity of creation in the Athabasca oilsands is clearly being sacrificed for economic gain. The proposed future development of the oilsands constitutes a serious moral problem,

The present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oilsands cannot be morally justified. Active steps to alleviate this environmental damage must be undertaken.

Or maybe it was the moving account of health problems in First Nation communities downstream from the euphemistically named "oil patch" (or "The Patch" for short). While the Canadian government recently downplayed the extremely rare cancers found in unusually high numbers there, the Academy Award nominated movie "Downstream" paints a picture that is extremely hard to ignore.

Or maybe it was the maximum fines levied this week over the death of 500 ducks that landed in a Syncrude waste pond (partially owned by ConocoPhillips and Murphy's Oil) over the summer. The water in these open sewers from the mines is so oiled and polluted, the birds did not have a chance from the moment they landed.

Or maybe it was the Danger in the Nursery report that we put out with Boreal Songbird Initiative and Pembina Institute. Nobody knows how many migratory birds die in those poisoned lakes (or as the oil folks call them, tailings ponds---even though the cover more than 30 square kilometers these days; that is a mighty big pond!), but the report puts the toll in the low five figures annually. And includes a scary projection of up to 166 million birds dying due to broader tar sands impacts in the coming decades.

Or maybe it was the Canadian government silencing some of their young citizensdemonstrating their concern at the climate talks in Poznan, Poland last year. The Canucks rewarded the students' political engagement by demanding their photos of the tar sand devastation be ripped down.

Or maybeit was the University of Toronto's Munk Center report that labeled the refining and pipeline infrastructure currently growing like mushrooms through out the upper US Midwest as a "pollution delivery system" going directly into the Great Lakes.

Or maybe it was the recent $1.1 million fine for environmental damage levied by the State of Wisconsin against Enbridge, a Canadian company using eminent domain in America to force their tar sands pipelines, for damages to wetlands in the state.

Or maybe it was the announcement that the Peace-Athabasca Delta was being named a Biogem: one of the most threatened landscapes in the Americas.

Or maybe it was the recent report showing that those poisonous tailings ponds were leaking into the surrounding water table.

Or maybe it was the resolution from the US Conference of Mayors last summer, challenging the use of tar sands and other high carbon fuels on our city streets and in our city vehicle fleets.

Or maybe it was the growing concern over the scale of the tar sands---two tons of earth removed and six barrels of water fouled for every single barrel of oil that comes out of there. That production sounds unsustainable---and it is---but unfortunately the tar sands sit under an area the size of Florida...yikes.

Or maybe it's a growing recognition that we need to do something about global warming. An alternative fuel made from tar sands that emits three times the CO2 of traditional oil is really not an alternative at all...

Whatever the reason, pity the Albertans.

The world has changed, but they seem to have missed the clean energy economy memo.

They've made it clear that the provincial and federal officials will be bringing a full court press when President Obama makes the traditional first foreign visit for a new president to Canada next week. But the administration has already made a number of exciting low carbon decisions that would imply tar sands are not going to play a significant role in America's energy mix.

The neighbors to the north will push the tar sands as our most secure energy option. But there is a growing recognition that energy security and national security are not the same thing. In fact, you cannot have national security without securing the climate.

Oil prices are way down ($40ish per barrel), so things have slowed down around "The Patch" and a number of new infrastructure projects have been shelved. But, despite this week's news of an oil glut in the US, prices won't stay this low for long. As prices move back towards profitability, you can expect the pace of development in Alberta to gear back up.

And while the next boom for the Calgary oil guys probably won't bring the same profits as the glory days of 2008, there is another industry clearly poised for a big year...

The big PR firms in Canada should be excited for 2009.

After all, as tar sands production gears back up---you can expect plenty more galling stories to keep the spinmeisters very busy and very profitable.

Food Guru and Global Warming: Meat and Mark Bittman on NPR

2009-01-22T22:02:21Z

I do a lot of the cooking in my house and Mark Bittman's book, How to Cook Everything, has become my kitchen bible. Bittman is not a chef. He's a journalist whose thoughtful stories have led him down a path to a small but growing food media empire.

His blog is great (thoughtful and cool recipes). His PBS shows are fun and educational (not typical cooking fare). And he continues to write.

Which brings me to this morning, when I was surprised to hear his voice over the NPR airwaves pimping a new book on "conscious eating." He describes the book as:

Here's the summary: Eat less meat, and fewer animal products in general (I'll get to specifics on page 93). Eat fewer refined carbohydrates, like white bread, cookies, white rice, and pretzels. Eat way less junk food: soda, chips, snack food, candy, and so on. And eat far more vegetables, legumes, fruits, and whole grains-as much as you can.

OK, seems reasonable.

But most of his interview, was focused on the "less meat" part of the equation. While there are quite a few vegetarians at NRDC, I am not one of them. I love meat. Still, Bittman's take is thought-provoking. Instead of the typical 10 meals/week in the American diet centered on meat, why not shift down to eight? When you look at the climate and pollution implications that come from modern factory farming, there are persuasive reasons to make this kind of change.

Still, I was a surprised that some of the stuff Bittman suggested on-air sounded...well...not particularly tasty. Soy sauce on oatmeal is pretty suspect, but that is not the point.

The point is, here's a guy who has devoted much of his life and career to food. In looking closely at his work, he sees a strong and, in his mind, dangerous connection to global warming. And so, he has made changes in his life to address these concerns. And while these are not necessarily huge changes---they certainly affect his world view and livelihood.

Listening to the interview, It turns out that the change has also paid off for him:

After just a few months of the new diet, Bittman says, he noticed improvements to his health: "I lost 35 pounds - which is about 15 percent of my body weight - my cholesterol went down 40 points; my blood sugar went from borderline bad to just fine; [and] my knees, which were starting to give out as a result of running at too high a weight, got better."

All of those things - and, he says, he's shrinking his carbon footprint.

"Feeling like you're changing the world," he says. "That's a nice thing, too."

I have no idea if the changes that Bittman is advocating can have the same impact on the planet as they've had in his personal life. My guess is yes...there are a number of groups out there advocating for much more drastic changes and there is evidence that broad changes in either the American diet and/or large-scale factory farm practices could make a big difference in the fight against climate change.

Let's be clear. I don't plan to become a vegetarian and I am not suggesting those lifestyle changes for anyone else. Your relationship with meat is your own business... (That is a very odd sentence to type, BTW.)

But I do think we are in a new era of personal responsibility and some of what I heard in the interview rings true to me. We are all going to have to do things to avert climate catastrophe. Some will involve vast economy-wide solutions, while others will be small changes and choices made at home.

That's why I had a falafel sandwich for lunch...

Who says change can't be tasty?

A New Rocky Mountain Low: Energy Security at the Expense of National Security?

2008-12-23T22:51:32Z

The Rocky Mountain News published a strongly pro-tar sands Op Ed from a Colorado petroleum geologist over the weekend, entitled "Oil sands spell energy security."

I don't claim to have aced any spelling bees -- but I do know my A-B-C's and enough about tar sands to be surprised that The Rocky would publish such a wrong-headed opinion piece. Not only does it border on climate change denial, but the central theme of the piece is out of line with the American defense and intelligence communities.

Quick review: tar sands oil is mined in Alberta where sludgy sand is heated and agitated to yield ultra-low quality petroleum. In the process of digging up two tons of Earth for every barrel of "oil" produced, incredible amounts of water are used spoiled and dumped into toxic lakes while huge tracts of the Boreal forest are ripped to the ground. The result? Goop that is piped into the US for refining into a fuel that emits three times the global warming emissions of standard petroleum. It's a lose-lose for everybody!

And those emissions are the crux of the problem for The Rocky's Op Ed. In the last year we have seen a growing number of reports (Department of the Navy and CIA) and Congressional testimonies that detail the growing concern over global warming in intelligence circles. They cite destabilization of weak regimes, increased competition for resources, and a huge population of environmental refugees that could have frightening geopolitical impacts in the coming decades.

Among the concerned are a growing who's who of prominent defense and intelligence figures with names that sound pretty familiar.

There is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni. The former commander of American forces in the Middle East and a co-author of a report warning that global warming poses a threat so huge that:

The only comparable experiences for many in the group was considering what the aftermath of a U.S.-Soviet nuclear exchange might have entailed during the height of the Cold War.

He told the LA Times, "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today ... or we'll pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."

That report came from the Center for Strategic & International Studies -- a group that is also associated with General Wesley Clark and a long list of Generals and Admirals who likely know a thing or two about protecting American interests in the world. If they are worried, we all should be...

The report underscores an essential point that the petroleum geologist who penned the Op Ed seems to have missed -- relying on dirtier and dirtier oil (like tar sand and oil shale) simply substitutes one problem with a far bigger one. Weaning ourselves from Middleastern oil does little good if we remain addicted to fuels that speed the impacts of global warming. Particularly when these dirtier fuels also impact essential fresh water supplies, a commodity that all agree will be far more valuable than oil in the coming years.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey gets it. He is absolutely focused on energy independence -- but he recognizes the inherent need to get serious about the move to kick the oil habit completely. He can be seen in a number of very prominent efforts to deal with the issue responsibly (including this NRDC anti-coal-to-liquid film, another frighteningly dirty fuel) advocating for plug-in hybrid cars and renewable energy sources.

The Op Ed questions the work of NRDC and repeats a litany of empty promises that have been made by the Alberta government and oil companies before proclaiming:

Environmental groups pretend as if the United States has nothing to gain from access to Canada's oil sands.

It is not pretend. And to proclaim otherwise is simply short-sighted (unless you are advocating for oil company profits)...

Luckily, there are plenty in America's defense and intelligence communities who will speak out against increased usage of Alberta's goo. They understand the dangers and the fact that national security and energy security are not always the same.

If you read the comments accompanying the Op Ed online, plenty of folks in Denver see the difference too. Maybe The Rocky will catch up and print some of those scalding responses in their Opinion pages too...

100,000 People Share a TV: Now that's energy efficiency

2008-11-05T22:44:51Z

So last night in Chicago's Grant Park, I got the chance to watch election returns with 99,999 of my best friends.

For the bulk of the evening, the crowd was glued to CNN reports on a jumbotron in the park's southeast corner. It's great to see that president-elect Obama's first public event embraced energy efficiency---just think of how much electricity was saved with this massive TV-sharing plan...

As a non-partisan organization, NRDC does not endorse candidates, but now that Obama has been declared the winner, we can begin to look at the environmental implications of the voters' decisions. It was thrilling to hear that our "planet in peril" was one of the three problems he was focused on---and judging from the crowd response I was hardly the only one with that reaction. Intentional, or not, energy efficiency efforts will be a big part of the effort that the next administration will have to kick into high gear.

Photo by Chris Anderson

Coal Juice Tastes Nasty in China: Central government says Coal-to-Liquid is too dirty

2008-10-16T14:29:03Z

Over and over we hear from dirty fuel advocates that the U.S. needs to use slop like tar sands and high sulfur coal so that it does not get shipped to places like China where the environmental standards are considered significantly weaker...

So an edict in China ending work on all but two coal-to-liquid plants in the country was a fascinating development. It seems that the technology has been deemed far too expensive and dirty for continued investment. Let's not forget, this is a country so wedded to coal that they are rolling out a coal plant every week---and this technology is unacceptable to them.

So why are we still looking at coal-to-liquids in America?

Billions of dollars are being thrown at Ohio's BAARD plant and Pennsylvania's Gilberton plant, even as consultants in West Virginia question the technology's future.

The same folks pushing coal argue that we cannot take the first step in creating carbon regulations---this is a global problem.

So, I hope we can find some global agreement on this technology. Let's leave it consigned to history's losers, folks like the Nazis and apartheid-era South Africa who had no other options.

We are in the midst of a global race to develop the new technologies that will power us out of our climate and energy crises. It is the absolute worst time to dabble with a dirty, discredited World War II technology that creates double the climate-changing emissions and discharges an array of dangerous pollutants.

If China has decided to leave coal-to-liquids in history's dustbin because it is too expensive and dirty, why dig it out here when we should be focusing American ingenuity on our own low-carbon future?

Water or Oil? Report says tar sands muck up Great Lakes

2008-10-08T21:41:28Z

Canada is the leading provider of oil to the US. But sadly, a growing percentage of that petroleum oozing south comes in the form of goop from Alberta's tar sands mines, most of which makes its way to the Great Lakes Region for refining. The University of Toronto released a report Wednesday that sets up an uncomfortable question about that dynamic. We really need to ask ourselves:

Which is more important to North America, fresh water or more oil?

Tar Sands. NRDC has pressed discussion and analysis of Tar Sands in multiple policy papers, advocacy briefings, legislative testimony, community meetings, and litigation. And, of course, here on Switchboard; how it is responsible for 3 times more greenhouse gas pollution as conventional crude oil, how it's extraction is destroying vast swaths of Canada and maybe creating mutant fish, how it might adversely affect communities that are already struggling, and how investments in its dirty infrastructure retards the growth of the clean energy economy we so desperately need in this country. But the University of Toronto's report entitled How the Oil Sands got to the Great Lakes Basin: Pipelines, refineries and emissions to air and water sets the scene for a much more urgent discussion.

Is our thirst for oil powerful enough to jeopardize the Great Lakes, which represent 1/5 of the world's fresh water?

In the University of Toronto report, researchers spell out how new transcontinental pipelines stretching from Alberta into the heart of Great Lakes and massive refinery expansions in the U.S. Midwest are creating a "pollution delivery system" that threatens our air and water quality, as well as human health in the region. The report outlines significant and growing damage already underway from refineries and pipelines---and calls for more research on the particular health threats that are likely unique to low grade bitumen products.

We know CO2 and an ugly array of pollutants will be raining down into the lakes as the expansions move forward, we know because the refineries have asked for permission to do this in the form of air and water pollution permits.

I am still making my way through the University of Toronto's report, and while it is gratifying to see NRDC's battle for stricter air permits for BP's Whiting, IN refinery and our recent settlement with ConocoPhillips cited as lone bright spots in the story, the narrative itself is otherwise fairly scary. It tells the same tale as NRDC's Midwest program has since its inception: the use of tar sands speeds climate change, destroys one of the most precious ecosystems on Earth, and forces disproportionate costs on the communities impacted by tar sands in the form of public health and environmental degradation.

That means that if you live near one of the massive refineries that are being retooled to deal with this stuff, you are going to be seeing more asthma and respiratory problems in your community. And we can't forget that if we let nasty pollutants go up into the air all around the Great Lakes---well, what goes up, must come down---and it will come down, into the drinking water source for ore than 30 million Americans (and plenty of Canadians too). If you live in the Midwest, you should be paying attention.

Last week there was much rejoicing when the Great Lakes Compact was signed. But the protections that were put in place are likely moot if we are going to allow our waters to be fouled by aggressively supporting the infrastructure for, what the report calls, a "pollution delivery system."

There is good news. In Canada, there is a growing awakening to the dangers present within their borders. I have talked to Canadian journalists trying to understand how the tar sands affect their nation's image internationally. And the opinion pages of Canadian newspapers reflect an ever-more conflicted public trying to weigh the undeniable environmental impacts against the economic windfall of oil.

In the U.S., the media is starting to pick up on the inherent problems of trying to fighting climate change while the oil companies and many in our government are advocating for the dirtiest fuel sources they can find. Reports like this one support and reinforce the arguments that NRDC is making in Indiana, Illinois, and DC.

We recently filed suit against the State Department over the proposed Keystone pipeline, which would move dirty tar sands oil from Alberta to Illinois for refining. When signing the treaties, the State Department treated the pipeline as though it was a benign tube, with limited environmental impacts. We will be arguing that activities past the ends of the tube need to be considered, so stay tuned!

Chicago Climate Action Plan: Keeping me in the Windy City

2008-09-24T18:09:44Z

OK, let's be clear. I love my city. And with that love comes a grudging acceptance of Chicago's weather quirks---blizzards, heat waves, and everything in between.

So, call me a booster, but I am extremely proud of the city's new effort to protect our uniquely Midwestern meteorological identity. The Chicago Climate Action Plan was released last week, outlining the aggressive CO2 reductions and infrastructure changes that the city feels are essential if we are going to beat climate change.

I think the narrative of the plan is remarkable.

What does climate change mean in an urban center far from rising coastlines and melting glaciers? In the case of Chicago, it is the addition of up to 30 days of 90+ degree temperatures---and with appropriate Chicago pragmatism, the costs incurred by the city are outlined, along with the financial impacts of erratic and violent weather and shifting growing zones. It shows in a very concrete fashion what the roll of cities must be in addressing climate change.

I was particularly struck by a section of the Mayor's introduction in the document:

In Chicago we have long appreciated that cities are no longer the enemies of the natural environment; rather they're leading the way in preserving and protecting it. Since I have been mayor, my goal has been to make Chicago a shining example of how a large city can live in harmony with its environment and as a result, be a better place for all its residents. I am confident that if we address the climate change challenge together, with creativity and boldness, then our city will continue to lead the world in designing a path to a more secure future.

The plan goes on to show how the specter of climate change makes cities more important than ever. The density of a place like Chicago makes the efficiencies in transit, energy delivery, and large buildings a potential treasure trove of saved energy and emissions. And that is the power of this plan---it is Kaid's blog come to life. Improve the trains and bus service so that we can get some of the cars off the road. Aggressively retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient to eliminate some of the emissions from power generation (I hope to blog a bit about the Clinton Foundation-funded retrofits of the Sears Tower and Merchandise Mart pretty soon). Use the energy resources that are out there in solar and wind. Those are all in the plan---which reads a lot like the McKinsey Report that NRDC has been widely disseminating as a national plan to deal with the same issues.

Cities are where the rubber meets the road. And as this plan shows, municipal governments can make substantial impacts while also making their towns a better place to live. Can we really make a difference by changing building codes and throwing solar panels around? This plan says, "yes."

Chicago, and Mayor Daley in particular, have been criticized for green washing the city; investing in big visible projects like the green roof on city hall that give cover for broader problems. But let's be clear, this plan is substantial and well-thought out with the sort of detailed focus on infrastructure that the policy folks here at NRDC love. Kudos to the mayor and his Chief Environmental Officer Sadhu Johnston---the document is not perfect, but it is aggressive and smart.

Certainly, there are problems and curious gaps. With its aggressive goals, why doesn't the City target expedited closure of the antiquated, polluting Crawford and Fisk coal power plants that have been belching filth in our air since Sam Insull sited them in the early 1900's? Regulatory changes on mercury pollution MAY shutter the plants by 2018---but that is too long to wait. The plan should have sent a more aggressive signal that we are going to address climate change, by addressing all the root causes---particularly the major sources of climate pollution.

Important gaps aside, the City's plan is a solid, important commitment.

I love this city. Sure there is crime. The winters are a drag. The Chicago River is an embarrassment, with all of its un-disinfected sewage...and lately the Bears have been too...

But I just can't see moving anywhere else. Yet, as the plan notes, if we do not get things under control quickly, Chicago's climate will change dramatically---feeling a lot more like Baton Rouge. Nothing against Louisiana, but that's just not what I signed up for---so I thank the mayor for his leadership and aggressive action. Hopefully it works so that I don't have to head for Manitoba to enjoy the glorious Midwestern fall season.

Of Forced Choice and Hip Hop

2008-08-06T23:37:05Z

I’ve had that great 90’s hip hop tune “The Choice is Yours” in my head for a week now. It's been lodged there since I read comments from Shell’s chief executive in the The Guardian.

What connects the Dutch oil giant with a washed up, but much-beloved hip hop duo? Forced choice.

Black Sheep's rap:

You can get with this, or you can get with that
I think you'll get with this, for this is where it's at

Shell’s rap boils down to something similar; with the insane idea that only an embrace of Canadian tar sands oil will protect us from the scourge of coal:

Shell warned environmentalists and ethical investors yesterday that failure to exploit tar sands and other unconventional oil products would worsen climate change because it would lead to the world burning even more carbon-heavy coal.
Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, said the world needed every kind of energy source it could find at a time of soaring demand. He said groups that had threatened to organise a ban on alternative fossil fuels should be careful because without unconventionals "the balancing fuel will be coal"

So…Alberta’s goo---responsible for three times the CO2 emissions of traditional oil, toxic lakes, and toppled forests---will save us from the climate changing threat of coal? You can get with coal. Or you can get with crude…

Of course not. That is the false choice, and it underscores the ongoing problem in our national energy debate. Choosing between dirty and dirtier fuels is not a choice. Neither coal nor heavy crude oil from the tar sands are reasonable long-term energy choices. It is an effort to prolong, rather than address, the untenable energy status quo. And it is an insult to American ingenuity, implying we cannot break our energy conundrum without scraping the bottom of the barrel.

We need to insist on real solutions to our very real energy problems. In the short-term, that is in large part about figuring how to use less. Bob Herbert’s column in the New York Times this week lamented how the lack of sexiness to efficiency programs is preventing us from taking the fastest and most impactful steps available to us right now. Perhaps if Paris Hilton took up the efficiency cause that would change, since the media is falling all over themselves to report her energy plan (the Chicago Tribune is already pushing her for the next Energy Secretary post...)

But in the meantime, we need to make sure that we look at all the options; not just those that are focused on burning our way out. The choice is ours.

Flood 2008: The Sponge That Saved Gurnee

2008-07-03T16:16:39Z

While reading coverage of the current Midwestern flood disaster, I was floored by this headline: 'Giant sponge' saved Gurnee from flooding.

Had the wise residents of this northern Illinois town erected a loofah levee?

Or rigged a mound of porous kitchen cleaners to fight off the rising Des Plaines River?

What was this amazingly absorbent technology that saved the town from the watery fate that has doomed so many other towns in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri of late?

The answer, it turned out, was much simpler.

While severe flooding plagued communities on nearby waterways, the Lake County News-Sun reported that Gurnee’s Mayor Kristina Kovarik credited her town’s dry streets to the natural protections afforded by nearby wetlands:

She attributed this to preventive flood mitigation measures that were initiated by county officials and municipalities more than a decade ago. She particularly praised the effectiveness of the Des Plaines Wetlands Demonstration Project upriver in the Wadsworth area.
"These wetlands serve as a giant sponge for us in controlling the flow of the Des Plaines River. They are an excellent shock absorber," Kovarik said.
The wetlands project dates back to the 1970s when the state commissioned a feasibility study to determine how wetland and river restoration can increase flood control, improve water quality, expand wildlife habitat and encourage recreational use, instead of just building more concrete dams. The 550-acre site along the Des Plaines River is owned by the Lake County Forest Preserve District and managed by Wetland Research Inc. The project has achieved many of its objectives and has saved millions of dollars by preventing flood damage.

As the mayor noted, streams and wetlands are natural flood protections. They act as a sponge to clean and hold water in heavy rain events. Unfortunately, we have ripped out roughly half of our wetlands in the lower 48 states.

Yesterday, I took part in a news conference to make the public aware of the fight over legislation that could make a difference in this area. The Clean Water Restoration act is an effort to clarify and reaffirm the original intentions of the Clean Water Act. In the light of Midwestern floods, the legislation is necessary to reinforce protections for our natural flood buffers---particularly since so few remain.

The federal government has recently released studies that show a likely increase in violent weather patterns, such as flooding. Instead of developing in oft-drenched flood plains, perhaps it is time to heed the lessons learned in Gurnee. A return of some land to the original flood-absorbing wetlands might make sense in many places. But let’s make sure that the few that remain are afforded the maximum legal protections.

After all, Gurnee is not the only sponge-worthy town around!

Farmer Wants a Wife? Farmer Wants a Crop!

2008-06-30T23:11:09Z

It is rare to find TV reality shows bumping heads with cutting edge science. But it happened last week with two unrelated releases…

The CW network played the finale of its dating reality show, “Farmer Wants a Wife.”

And The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) released “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate.”

What do they have in common? Well, the CCSP report showed that we will be seeing more and more violent weather events as a result of global warming. And the farmer? Well, he seems to be suffering from the sort of violent weather that the report focuses on---a dose of reality for reality TV…

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Matt Neustadt---the farmer who wants a wife---did not get a chance to watch his show’s finale because he was desperately trying to save his crops from impending flood waters:

"We were trying to cut wheat late that night because of the high water they were predicting," Neustadt said.

Forty percent of his family farm is under water right now and he will lose most of this year’s crops. His farm sits near the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, so occasional floods are not a surprise:

"I'm not going to complain too much; that's just part of living in a flood plain," he said.

That’s a healthy response, but shouldn’t the CCSP report be setting off alarm bells here? More violent weather. More tornadoes. More hurricanes. More floods.

While the mantra remains that no specific weather event can be attributed to global warming, Newsweek reports on an Iowa State professor who claims that the floods in his area are directly tied to global warming.

So we are likely to hear the terms “500-year floods” and “storms of the century” bandied about more often.

We already use floodplain maps to determine limitations on where to build, flood insurance, and added environmental regulations. The impact of flooding is also noted in broader 100- and 500-year flood plains. (Contrary to the straight-forward naming, a 100-year flood is not the biggest storm in a century; it relates to the percent chance that waters will inundate an area in a 100 year time span.)

Given the potential for more frequent flooding, it might be time to re-map those flood plains. FEMA had already started the process---but they were focused on crumbling infrastructure. But the climate change news makes these discussions all the more important as those lines are redrawn and billions in flood relief dollars are dolled out after the waters recede.

Otherwise, down the line farmers like Matt might be looking for more than just a wife… They might be looking for new farms, farm houses, and farm land…