Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

BOO!!! Scary Halloween Nuclear Nightmare!!!

We had a great time at our press event this week talking about the dangers of nuclear… ahhem, sorry… “Nuke-u-lar” energy.

I hope you’ll enjoy our little Halloween play, complete with monsters, dragons, and radiation… Oh My! And the worst part– billionaires trick-or-treating for our taxpayer money in Congress and State Legislature!

As I say in the video, “Stick the nukes where the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine– and that ain’t Texas!”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwz7PWHG0FM]

For more info, visit NukeFreeTexas.org.

Read Full Post »

Nicholas Stern, formerly of the British Treasury, said over the weekend that the risks of inaction over climate change far outweigh the turmoil of the global financial crisis.

The risk consequences of ignoring climate change will be very much bigger than the consequences of ignoring risks in the financial system… That’s a very important lesson, tackle risk early.”

Suggestion noted.  And just as people were sounding the alarm about the unsustainability of the housing market and the risks in the subprime lending market, so too have people been sounding the alarm about climate change.  We can still tackle the risk early or we can face the consequences.

Stern also warned not to use the current financial problems as a reason to not tackle climate change now.  Investments in efficiency will put people to work immediately and start bringing down electric bills for consumers.  Investing in solar and wind will put people to work in manufacturing, constructing, and installing these new forms of low carbon energy.

We have the technology, we can do it.  We can choose a new energy future and receive the economic benefits of investing in it, or we can face the consequences of inaction, which we are already seeing today.

Now all we need is a catchy slogan, easily shouted at campaign rallies.  Weatherstrip, baby, weatherstrip?

Read Full Post »

Putting Off the Problem

From our contributor Sarah McDonald:

Usually when a problem suddenly becomes much more severe, you expect whatever is being done to solve the issue to also ramp up a notch.  For example, if a tropical storm in the gulf suddenly turned into a category 3 hurricane, hurricane preparedness efforts would increase dramatically over night.  Or if your Aunt Mildred had been sick for some time and her doctor announced that she was in fact seriously ill, you’d hope that her physician would boost treatment.  And if the EPA announced that Houston had a “severe”, not a “moderate” smog problem, you’d think that region would be required to put extra effort into emissions reductions.

Well, you’d be wrong.

Because the EPA did in fact reclassify Houston’s smog problem as “severe”, and rather than ordering the 8-county regional area to intensify their clean up plans, the agency actually extended the deadline to meet federal health standards for ozone.  Governor Rick Perry requested the change from “moderate” to “severe” – skipping over a “serious” ranking entirely. The region was supposed to have met the EPA’s standards by 2010, but now has until 2019 to come into compliance.  What’s worse, this extension is still for the EPA’s 1997 ozone standard, which is no longer considered sufficient to protect public health.  The EPA reduced allowable amounts of ozone from 84 parts per billion to 75 ppb earlier this year (which is still significantly higher than the 60 – 70 ppb range recommended by the EPA’s science advisory committee as the safest measure to protect human health  — but what do those scientists know anyway?)  Houston may not be required to meet the current standard until as late as 2030.

Now, not that I wouldn’t trust Governor Perry and the EPA with my life… (more…)

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Misenergy

Nuclear power is not an answer to our collective energy problem.  Essentially, turning to nuclear power as a primary solution to the current carbon-based system is like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.  It is not an “alternative”.  Considering that, in resource-availability terms, we could already be powering most structures in this state with solar power, and that we have not done so out of adherence to constructs and public policies rooted in economic interests, it seems ridiculous to suggest that our power problem demands we dig up metal and devise ingenious was of containing and storing radioactive dust.  For me, there are three levels upon which nuclear power as a primary power source does not work.

1)     Forming a larger industry around the mining of uranium would recreate the oil-based market system that has contaminated the global markets, has instigated war, has tainted laws.  Wind is free.  Sunlight is free.  Yes, solar panels are built with silicon-but the silicon we use comes from sand and is the second-most common element on the earth (after oxygen).  If we want to progress as a planet, we must focus not only on outcomes, but the means of attaining them.  We need a new system that is not primarily driven by mining minerals-because that system can be too easily dominated by a relatively few people with the right land.   In a wind and solar-based system, opportunity to participate and regulate is inherently more accessible.  Wind is free.  Sunlight is everywhere.  So without even considering environmental impacts, a nuclear energy-based system is a repugnant proposition to me.   This is my number one reason for opposing nuclear energy.  We must question advocates of nuclear energy and consider whether they stand to benefit from mining, conversion of coal burning plants, or processing.

2)     We need to recognize and heed the signs (the glaring billboards!) that uranium mining and nuclear power are wrong at a deeper level.  At this point in our global evolution, we know what can lay ahead when indigenous people and “progress” meet.  In hindsight of world history, we now see how many of the worst aspects of contemporary society were foreshadowed in interactions with native peoples at the outset of a progressive undertaking.  So where indigenous people react adversely to something today, we should listen.  To ignore the response of native people to uranium mining would be a monumental failure-the prospect of so doing reminds me of the Zora Neale Hurston book Their Eyes were Watching God, when the workers watched the Native Americans leaving the land only to later find themselves in the worst hurricane in the nation’s history.  Culture is the heart of the planet.  How can we advocate what causes the heart to bleed?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Corpus Christi – October 7, 2008

The “Sparkling City by the Sea” has been losing its sparkle through the years, as more and more refineries pollute its air and water. Now a new threat looms to increase the pollution that is damaging and degrading what should be the glistening jewel of the Texas Gulf Coast.

A by-product of the refining industry is petroleum-coke (or pet-coke). It is the toxic-filled waste that is left over after the refining industry gets all it wants out of crude oil. The Las Brisas Energy Center is a proposed facility that will burn this waste in what is, basically, a coal plant on the shores of Nueces Bay.

I attended a public meeting held by the TCEQ on Tuesday that allowed for comments and questions to be asked of the TCEQ and representatives of Las Brisas. Many concerns were raised by concerned citizens and few, if any, of the questions were answered satisfactorily.

The main proponents of the facility seemed to be, as usual, those who were happy at the proposed jobs this facility would create. One of the points I brought up was how green jobs (jobs from energy efficiency programs and from renewable energy generation) would provide far more employment opportunities for the area: permanent jobs (as opposed to temporary construction jobs) which couldn’t be outsourced.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Letting Go of Ethanol

I’ve been wanting to write a piece arguing that just because ethanol isn’t a complete solution to global warming and oil prices, it is still an alternative to oil and therefore good. Unfortunately, I can’t honestly say that because ethanol isn’t even a partial solution; it’s just a bigger problem.

I really wanted to like ethanol because corn is good.  And I really wanted to quote Hardin from his 1968 article in Science magazine where he said: “. . .we can make a rational decision which will not involve the unworkable assumption that only perfect systems are tolerable.” I love the quotation, however, I sadly cannot honestly say that it applies to ethanol. In my mind I hear that blind Native American in the Oliver Stone film U-turn.

I’m generally wary of arguments purely rooted in economics, so I wanted to address some of those. But it turns out there’s pretty much no good argument in favor of ethanol and if there were one, I wouldn’t want to make it.  Turns out, according to Nobel prize winners and writers for Science and world news sources, ethanol has a pretty big carbon footprint when you take into account the carbon emissions released from burning forests to plant crops for use as diesel fuel. Turns out the amount of nitrogen needed to grow corn or switchgrass for fuel emits atmospheric nitrous oxide in levels that are worse for the planet than ozone. Turns out that the production of corn-based ethanol results in “dead zones” in our water sources, like a huge swath of the Mississippi. Turns out that people starve in-part because selling the crops for fuel rather than food reaps more profit. Turns out that hungry people are rioting around the world. Turns out that the nitrogen reaction used to grow the corn is produced using natural gas, which is not only a non-renewable carbon-based resource but which, in Texas, dictates prices on the energy markets. Yes, ethanol from sugarcane works for Brazil, but who knows what the lasting effects of massive deforestation will be and should we encourage the potential loss of more?

I asked a friend of mine why U.S. and E.U. legislators aren’t doing less to prop up the crop-fuel industry, like halting the subsidies and mandates, and doing more to find real solutions to global problems in the face of the evidence. He said, “They don’t want to find solutions. They want to sell corn for high prices.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Many of us here at Public Citizen love The Colbert Report. We had to give a brief shout-out to our very own Tyson Slocum who works in our DC office for appearing on Stephen Colbert’s eponymous Report last night.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/184943/september-16-2008/tyson-slocum

Listen to Tyson explain how energy companies are fleecing us while people run amock at the Department of the Interior. Also, stick around for the Threatdown and how global warming is getting rid of the threat from icebergs……

Read Full Post »

This is so very cool. GM is “leaking” photos of its new VOLT concept electric vehicle. So the car maker is finally reaching its goals, as stated in the 1980 first edition of The Cousteau Almanac, An Inventory of Life on our Water Planet. To wit: “The great car hope of the future, of course, is the EV. General Motors promises an electric car by the mid-1980s that will reach a speed of 60 miles (97) kilometers per hour and run 80 miles (130 kilometers) before needing a recharge. The company estimates that 10 percent of the cars on U.S. highways will be EVs by 1990.”

Word on the net is the VOLT will reach 120 mph and travel 40 miles before needing a recharge. Although there might possibly be some need for us to lay blame for the delay at the feet of GM (as if there already isn’t mounds of it there for other stuff) , we might as well rejoice and move on. Actually, I only even feel the need to highlight it at all in effort to say let’s not make a similar mistake with this “Drill Here, Drill Now”-let’s-just-drill-for-oil-around-FLORIDA,-THE-ROCKIES-(hey don’t worry it’s S-H-A-L-E) campaign.

Back to Cousteau. The 1980 almanac also says things about energy like, “A 1978 United Nations report concluded that solar cells would become cheaper (more…)

Read Full Post »

Sneezing, sniffling?  The culprit may be global warming according to this report. Experts are also warning us that allergy season may be extended or aggravated as the climate warms.

An article in the Austin American Statesman also discusses how climate change is spreading previously exotic diseases to places like Texas.

While you’re at it, watch out for your 401(k) and retirement savings, as some of Wall Street’s biggest funds and companies are not preparing adequately for climate change and may end up losing your money!

As if that weren’t enough, climate change is also affecting growing seasons, decreasing the pollination window for corn from 10 down to only three or four days.  This will eventually mean higher prices on everything from ethanol to beef or anything that contains corn-byproducts.

So what do we do?  Thomas Friedman, the noted economist and best-selling author, talked about how dealing with climate change is a huge economic winner with none other than Dave Letterman earlier this week:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVmJpM_UFVs]

Meanwhile, Google’s CEO Eric Scmidt has some ideas of his own, saying the United States could save $2.7 trillion dollars by switching to smart grids, efficient buildings, and renewable energy. So when’s the beta test coming out for “Google House”?

Read Full Post »

The big coal interests have a favored saying: “There is no silver bullet.” This old adage suggests there is no single solution to the growing energy needs and concerns of this country. While this is obviously true, the only solution (or “silver bullet”) that these charlatans ever talk about is “clean” coal. Ironically enough, “clean” coal is a fantasy notion as mythical as the werewolves and other monsters silver bullets were reputed to destroy.

For those unfamiliar with monster lore and mythology, silver bullets were capable of destroying everything from werewolves to vampires – creatures that had no other weakness or vulnerability. This metaphor is quite fitting to our dilemma of increasing energy demand while preserving the ecosystem, for it is a dilemma that seems insurmountable and unsolvable. Our civilization is built upon electricity and the idea of continuing our lifestyles without it is unfathomable to many Americans. But, as with the legendary monsters of old, a silver bullet does exist to address and conquer this problem – at least metaphorically.

It is not wind power, or solar power, or even energy efficiency, nor is it some yet-to-be-discovered technology that we hang unreasonable hopes upon. It is a mindset. A way of viewing the world free from the burdensome fear and closed-mindedness of the energy industry’s status quo. The simple knowledge, which (more…)

Read Full Post »

Original blog from Coal Block

I just try to lay out the facts.

Tones of Equilavent Carbon per Capita

Tones of Equilavent Carbon per Capita

Those were the words of Tom Mullikin (lawyer and nationally known speaker) at a talk he gave sponsored by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce to a “crowded hall full of business and political leaders from across the state,” as printed in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Mullikin went on to talk about how local efforts to curb the effects of coal plants on the environment are useless, listing “facts” about how man-made emissions only comprise 5.5 percent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and that “Kansas homes, factories, cars, livestock and power plants… contribute just 0.013 percent of all greenhouse gases floating in the world’s atmosphere.”

This is not the first time I’ve heard these statements about percentages, and they are irrelevant. It is not the overall percentage of greenhouse gases represented by human activity that matters – what matters is how much the overall amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, and 5.5% is a significant amount. Just think of blood alcohol levels, or a glass of water filled to the brim – one more drop will make it overflow.

The other glaring piece of misinformation provided by Mullikin is the idea that changes and efforts on a local scale to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is futile. This notion is not only totally incorrect, it is irresponsible, and Mr. Mullikin should be ashamed for touting such nonsense.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Gas prices are abominably high. The good news? It’s time to kick the oil habit. When i lived in New York City and the price of cigarettes went up to $10, my smoker friends took the hint and kicked the butt.

We face the same problem with gas prices, and with the overwhelming sentiment to “Drill here! Drill now!” overtaking our debate on national energy policy, I’m reminded again of my smoker friends. What if they had simply decided that it was time to start buying their cigarettes in bulk from New Jersey or Connecticut? They would have missed the added health benefits of quitting smoking.

STOP SMOKING NOW!

STOP SMOKING NOW!

Global Warming is coming to a crisis point, and we are already seeing the effects: flooding along the Mississippi, record-breaking heat and drought across Texas, and increasing food prices due to lower crop yields are only the leading edge of a climate disaster if we do nothing. Unfortunately, offshore drilling is worse than doing nothing. The saying goes that when you find you are digging yourself into a hole, STOP DIGGING! By increasing production of oil we can only guarantee that we will put more pollution into the atmosphere and hasten the arrival of catastrophic climate change.

But proponents say we have to bring down the price of gas. True– my family is hurt by having to spend $50-$60 every time we fill up our car. But according to the Bush Administration’s Department of Energy, offshore drilling will not affect gas prices at all. It will be 8-10 years before we see any real production out of these wells. Further, the amount they would produce would not help make us more energy independent, as the relatively small supplies would be gobbled up by international demand. Their quote is “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

But that hasn’t stopped Congress from “acting.” Congressman Gene Green (D-Houston) announced a bi-partisan energy plan that includes more drilling, co-sponsored by Ruben Hinojosa (D-Corpus Christi), Solomon Ortiz (D-Corpus Christi), Charlie Gonzalez (D-San Antonio), Ciro Rodriguez (D-San Antonio), Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo), and Nick Lampson (D-Houston). Considering the proximity to the Gulf Coast of most of these districts, I would think these Congressmen would be more concerned about offshore oil spills ruining the coastlines or about the sea level rise, even a small amount of which would put Galveston, South Padre Island, and the Houston Ship Channel under water.

Since our oil problem is essentially one of increased demand driving up prices, the best answer to decrease oil prices is to demand less by using less. So, offshore drilling means more global warming, and no easing of the pain at the pump. Efficiency means less global warming, lower prices, and we’re using less gas to begin with. That way, if we did manage to tackle climate change and wanted to drill decades from now when oil is $300 / barrel, we will have left that resource to our children and grandchildren instead of simply greedily drinking that milkshake now.

Sounds like a no-brainer: the type of solution no one in Washington DC would ever consider.

Read Full Post »

An 8 mile chunk of ice broke off from the arctic icecap according to satellite photos of the region. This is truly disturbing as we come closer to a summer where the Arctic icecap completely disappears. The ice cap is not only an indicator of global warming, but a feedback mechanism as well: ice reflects heat and without our “white cap” the ocean and surrounding land will absorb more heat, increasing the greenhouse effect significantly.

We must immediately work to change the trajectory of our greenhouse gas emissions so that we don’t do any further damage. Otherwise we will very soon face an arctic with no ice. This would lead to more and faster global warming, sea level rise of several feet from other land-based glacier melt, and a severe threat to our water supplies, agriculture, and way of life.

Read Full Post »

An op-ed in the New York Times yesterday by O. Glenn Smith, a former NASA employee, suggests what is certainly a “thinking outside the box” kind of solution to our nation’s energy woes: solar panels…in outer space.

Smith recommends building large solar panels that would orbit the earth and send energy back to us via wireless radio waves. Apparently, the technology already exists, and the pro column reads something like this:

  • not hampered by weather
  • works 24 hours a day (the sun never sets in space)
  • environmentally friendly
  • cost-competitive with other renewables
  • makes use of the United States’ hefty investment in space travel

While I’m always glad to hear about innovations that will help our globe move toward a sustainable energy schema, I’m a little skeptical about the way Smith holds up this technology as the way of the immediate future. He opens his piece with this:

As we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources — coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar — are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment.

This quick dismissal of the alternative energy sources we know and love (except…how is coal alternative?) is questionable. For starters, I have a hard time believing that any energy system that must be installed and maintained outside our atmosphere will be less expensive than one based here on the earth’s surface.

Smith also ignores the benefits that energy sources like wind and ground-based solar provide that space-based solar does not. One of the great benefits of investing in wind and solar power is the creation of thousands of jobs, especially in rural areas. The fact that the handymen for these solar panels in space would have to also be astronauts prevents space-based solar from becoming a solution to the dearth of quality manufacturing and other blue-collar jobs in this country.

Some day, I hope we will see space-to-earth solar energy. But for now, let’s focus on all the untapped renewable energy potential here on terra firma before we pull a Buy N’ Large* and run to outer space in search of the answers.

But if the idea of space-based solar intrigues you, you can read more about it on this blog dedicated to the topic.

*obligitory (in my opinion anyway) Wall-E reference

-Natalie Messer

Read Full Post »

The effect of deregulation has been harmful to Texans of all social backgrounds and economic levels across the state. It has turned the idea of competition on its head—people have a choice now, but it’s not cheaper. Essentially, deregulation has replaced forcing people to buy cheaply from public sources with forcing people to pay higher prices from a private company of their choosing.

Today, the state average cost for residential electricity is 12.86 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Whether or not residential electricity bills in Texas are actually higher now than before deregulation, and whether or not most Texans have access to and actually use the state’s PowerToChoose website are questions that have been debated. But some harmful effects of deregulation on Texans are undeniable.

Electricity deregulation is the state action of allowing private companies to sell electricity. The Texas retail electric industry became deregulated in most parts of the state in January 2002.

When it was introduced in Texas in the mid 1990s, the stated goal of electricity deregulation was for Texans to benefit from lower electricity prices. Low prices would result from private electricity sellers (Retail Electric Providers/REPs) competing for customers. Residents could choose which company to buy from on the state’s website, PowerToChoose.com.

“To convince lawmakers and the public of deregulation’s merits, Enron and its allies promised that restructuring would offer Texans lower prices and consumer choice. In 1996, (one Enron executive) told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that the statewide average of about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour was an ‘absurdly high’ price for electricity. ‘There’s nothing in this market that suggests we won’t see the same savings of 30 to 40 percent we’ve already seen elsewhere,’ he said,” wrote Forrest Wilder in a 2006 Texas Observer article entitled, “Overrated: Deregulation was supposed to lower Texans’ electric bills”.

Here are some of the problems with electricity deregulation in Texas:

Problem 1: Among states in which residents use about as much electricity in their homes each month as those in Texas do:

  • Texans pay more per kWh of electricity than residents of any other state;
  • Texas residential electricity rates are higher than every other state, except Florida, by 3.1 cents to 6.6 cents per kWh. Texas rates are 1.5 cents higher per kWh than in Florida.

For example, Texas homes use an average of 1,161 kWh of electricity each month. Similarly, residents of Georgia use an average of 1,158 kWh of electricity each month. However, the average retail price of electricity in Georgia is about 8.91 cents per kWh, while the price in Texas is about 12.86 cents per kWh.

All of the above is based upon the most recent figures available from the U.S. Department of Energy’s “U.S. Average Monthly Bill” tables available online.

Problem 2: Texans (whether of higher or lower income status) living in areas where electricity deregulation took effect pay more for their electricity than their fellow Texans who live in areas where electricity is provided by an investor-owned utility, a city, or a co-op.

For example, based on price rates posted on each entity’s website, Texas’ residential monthly average 1,161 kWh of electricity costs from about $52 to $132 for those who receive their electricity from non-private providers like, Xcel Energy in Amarillo, the City of Austin and Pedernales Co-op.

However, based on the rates offered on the websites of some of the private companies listed on the PowerToChoose, the cost for Texans who must buy from a private company (people who live in areas like Garland, Houston, Waco and McAllen) might pay anywhere from $154 to $232 for the same amount of residential electricity.

Problem 3: Aside from high prices, consumers have complained of ill treatment by power companies in the deregulated market. The Ft.Worth Star Telegram recently reported that complaints against three of the four recently failed electric companies jumped about 2,400 percent, from about 20 complaints at the beginning of the year to 508 in May.

Problem 4: Under current state law, political subdivisions, like counties, schools and hospital districts can easily aggregate power needs to get the cheapest rates for their buildings, but cities cannot easily aggregate so that individuals can get the cheapest rates for their homes.

One method of easing the problems described above would be to amend state law to allow cities to more easily aggregate residents’ electricity purchases. This could be achieved with Opt-Out aggregation. Opt-Out aggregation allows a city to pool the power needs of its residents and buy electricity under a single contract from an REP, without the affirmative approval of each resident (what Texas law currently requires). Under Opt-Out aggregation, any residents could notify the city if they did not want to participate.

Opt-Out aggregation has worked well in the deregulated markets of both California and Ohio. California allows for Opt-Out aggregation across the board. Ohio, on the other hand, allows each city to choose whether or not to adopt Opt-Out residential electricity aggregation in a resolution by the city council. The city of Kent Ohio, in a draft of a resolution adopting Opt-Out aggregation, recognized the Ohio Consumer’s Council’s labeling of Opt-Out as the “jewel” of Ohio electric deregulation.

Although, in May, TXU took voluntary action to reduce penalties and payments for low-income Texans and Texans aged 62 or older, the Texas competitive electricity market leader’s approach does not address the problems stated above. All Texans, not just those over age 62 and those who have low incomes, deserve to pay truly competitive electricity prices.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »