Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

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 »

Public Citizen is a national sponsor of this year’s Netroots Nation conference, and as the Austin Texas office of Public Citizen is happy to play host. We’ve met so many great people and been in so many excellent meetings. We’re also proud that we launched this, our Texas blog, in concert with NN08. Today has been incredibly busy and wonderful, so let me fill all of you in who weren’t here.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

A new study from Tom Brikowski, a geosciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, and Drs. Yair Lotan and Margaret Pearle, urology professors at UT Southwestern Medical School, printed in this week’s issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, made an interesting conclusion. More global warming will mean more kidney stones. For those of us who are at risk for or have a family history of kidney stones (it’s because of all the Diet Coke I drink), this is even more worrisome.

The good news is we can easily change our diets and reduce other risk factors. Switching to non-carbon producing forms of energy and transportation may not be quite so easy. However, just like kicking a bad Diet Coke habit. we can get ourselves off of oil and especially coal by making new investments in renewable energy.

Kidney stones are just the beginning of the health problems we can prevent by stopping global warming. We can prevent the spread of previously tropical and exotic disease like malaria and West Nile virus that can migrate as the climate changes. By stopping greenhouse gas pollution we can also stop the pollution that leads to asthma, emphysema, and other lung ailments. And by investing in efficiency and renewable energy now, we can have cheaper energy and get more bang for our energy buck.

Read the story in the Dallas Morning News on this subject here.

~~Andy

Read Full Post »

This article originally posted at citizenvox.org

Global warming is the singular environmental challenge of our generation. Some people claim you cannot be green without sacrificing economic development. Actually, we can create a greener energy future for Texas and reduce our electric bills at the same time by investing in our electric infrastructure.

This week the Texas Public Utility Commission met to decide on upgrading the power grid infrastructure to make sure that we can build new clean, renewable sources of energy in West Texas (where all the sun and wind is) and get it to the people in the major population centers in East Texas. Of three options, they chose the medium, compromise amount of investment. While not as large as we would have liked (the best option was an “electric superhighway” that would have saved Texans billions in their energy bills), the PUC chose to make a large investment in the clean energy future of our state.

Wind power in Texas is now a cheaper source of electricity than fossil fuel alternatives. Building newer transmission lines is the best way to quit our addiction to fossil fuels.

Want to learn more? Read our press release about our news conference, or read the study and policy paper here. You can also watch a video about renewable energy in Texas and how we can save $1.2 billion dollars here.

Read Full Post »

Why 350?

In the past few weeks I have come across 350.org‘s recent animated video several times, each time more impressed at its simplicity and effectiveness. In 90 seconds, without words, the short cartoon manages to convey what we are doing to cause global warming, why you should care, and what you can do about it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5kg1oOq9tY]

350.org‘s message is clear and simple. Global warming is a universal problem and if we continue to go about our lives normally at 387 ppm we will suffer dire consequences (many of which we are already experiencing—melting ice caps, increased drought, and more incidences of disease). Though universal in scope, effects of global warming will vary by region. Texas leads the United States in greenhouse gas emissions and if we were a country, we would rank 7th in the world for our emissions.

BUT, it is not too late! …if we act now. Just like the stick figures in the video, what you do adds up. Every little thing helps. So, ride your bike to work, use canvas bags at the grocery store, write your congressman to support renewable energy sources, invest in more efficient appliances, and keep spreading the word: 350.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts