GREENPEACE VICTORY

I'm really excited to report that Greenpeace won its campaign in Slovakia to change Slovakian law, allowing local communities to weigh in on the establishment of uranium mines near them. This is particularly great news for me, as I worked on this campaign a couple years ago in Slovakia with the Greenpeace Organizing Term. Check out the full scoop from Greenpeace:

The campaign was started three years ago by a coalition of groups which included Greenpeace. In Slovakia, any petition gaining 100,000 signatures must be discussed by the country’s parliament. The coalition’s petition gained 113,000 and it was delivered to the parliament in September last year.

This week the campaign was victorious when, in a momentous decision, the Slovak parliament agreed on legal changes to geological and mining laws to give more power and control to local communities, municipal and regional authorities. This will allow them stop or limit geological research of uranium deposits and to stop proposed uranium mining.

This is a huge achievement for the Slovak environmental movement and should be an inspiration for groups around the world. For the first time in Slovak history non-governmental organisations were able to collect over 100,000 signatures, have an environmental issue submitted to the Slovak parliament by a petition, and to achieve a change in the law by a petition.

This does not mean a complete ban on uranium mining in Slovakia but gives significant powers to local and regional authorities in the mining permission process. All 41 municipal authorities facing proposed uranium mining projects in their territories have already declared their opposition. There’s an excellent chance that Slovakia’s uranium will never see the light of day.

oil spill--blessing in disguise?

While coverage of the oil spill makes me cry, the disaster might prove beneficial after all. In its nascent stage, the spill cast energy reform as a "political impossibility," primarily because compromises expanding offshore drilling attracted otherwise-opponents to the measure. Post-spill, those compromises would be pulled, and opposition would increase.

But that assessment was nearly a month ago. Six weeks later and still no solution, the spill has become truly frightening. So frightening that, despite my heated criticism of Obama's stagnant efforts to push an energy bill in the past, looks like we are both singing different tunes. Now the President is actually willing to do something, and now I believe it.

The New York Times reports:

President Obama will call Wednesday for rolling back billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies, and will vow to push for climate change legislation “in the coming months,” setting the stage for another potentially divisive battle in Congress. full article

Holler.

energy reform is a political impossibility

While my immediate reaction to the oil spill was sadness, my secondary reaction was optimistic. Now Obama would be forced to back-peddle on his proposal to expand offshore drilling.

That was an incomplete assessment.

Senator Graham, chief sponsor of a Senate energy bill, called energy politically impossible for now. The bill tempered opposition by amping up offshore drilling. With drilling off the table, say buh-bye to any compromises. Additionally, Democrats are focusing on immigration, putting energy reform back where it was during the health care debate--on the back burner (well...not that it ever left the back burner).

Obviously I say "thanks, but no thanks" to offshore drilling--but I am willing to accept a diluted energy package over nothing at all. Sadly, even a limp bill is looking unrealistic.

While there is talk about making moves ("Never let a crisis go to waste. It is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"--Rahm Emanuel), nothing will happen unless Dems get their priorities straight.

Really, the only option at this point is consumer activism. I'm all about Thomas Friedman's re-casting of capitalism as favorable to the environment. Consumer pressure can enact change faster than government action. I'll have to dig up the Lexus and The Olive Tree and blog some examples (e.g. consumer pressure forcing large tuna companies to go "dolphin free" when net restrictions were lifted).

Regulators Approve First Offshore Wind Farm in U.S.

Factory farms? No. Wind farms? Yes, please.

Check out some exciting news:

After nine years of regulatory review, the federal government gave the green light Wednesday to the nation’s first offshore wind farm, a highly contested project off the coast of Cape Cod.

The approval of the 130-turbine farm gives a significant boost to the nascent offshore wind industry in the United States, which has lagged far behind Europe and China in harnessing the strong and steady power of ocean breezes to provide electricity to homes and businesses.

But hold your horses:

Several regulatory hurdles remain, and opponents of the wind farm have vowed to go to court, potentially stalling Cape Wind for several more years. full article

loosey goosey coal mining regulations

The safety regulations of coal mining is perhaps as horrifying as its environmental impact. The recent West Virginia coal mine explosion (that left no survivors) shines light on limp violation-reduction policies that keep dangerous coal mines up and running.

[T]he mine had received 204 violations that were deemed serious and significant over the previous two years, well above average...Since the start of 2009, the records show, the mine had at least 50 notices of problems that Massey knew existed but failed to correct. more

Why didn't a pattern of violations warrant closure of the mine?

Officials of the mine safety agency said that they were bound by the current regulations, which require them to issue warning letters, and that if companies successfully reduce their rate of violations by 30 percent, they are not to be found to have a pattern of violations...Companies can escape the added oversight even if they continue to be worse than the national average. more

and coal companies rigorously appeal their citations:

Massey appealed at least 37 of the 50 citations for serious safety violations that it received last year...At a hearing in February, Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, complained that the growing number of appeals by coal companies threatened to “render the federal efforts to hold mine operators accountable meaningless.” Mining safety experts have expressed similar concerns. more

Seems like appealing citations is the least offensive defense tactic on Massey's list. Massey CEO Don Blankenship

poured in $3 million, to unseat a justice he expected would rule against Massey in a lawsuit. It was so much money, his strategy backfired. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the newly elected state justice was too tainted by Blankenship's money to rule on the case. more

If you're a frequent reader of The Colonic, Massey Energy might sound familiar. Recall that in September of 2009, Massey and Verizon teamed up and threw an anti-environmental hoopla at the West Virginia coal mine to rally against the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

NY says no more outdated nuclear cooling

Great news:

In a major victory for environmental advocates, New York State has ruled that outmoded cooling technology at the Indian Point nuclear power plant kills so many Hudson River fish, and consumes and contaminates so much water, that it violates the federal Clean Water Act.

The decision is a blow to the plant’s owner, the Entergy Corporation, which now faces the prospect of having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build stadium-size cooling towers, or risk that Indian Point’s two operating reactors — which supply 30 percent of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester County — could be forced to shut down.

...But the strongly worded letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation, issued late Friday, said flatly that Indian Point’s cooling systems, even if modified in a less expensive way proposed by Entergy, “do not and will not comply” with New York’s water quality standards.

...Sucking so much water causes plankton, eggs and larvae to be drawn into the plant’s machinery, or entrained, and the water pressure also causes fish to be trapped, or impinged, against intake screens, the state said.

Full article

EARTH HOUR

Here's the deal:

On Earth Hour hundreds of millions of people, organizations, corporations and governments around the world will come together to make a bold statement about their concern for climate change by doing something quite simple—turning off their lights for one hour. In the U.S. where we are already feeling the impacts of climate change, Earth Hour sends a clear message that Americans care about this issue and want to turn the lights out on dirty air, dangerous dependency on foreign oil and costly climate change impacts, and make the switch to cleaner air, a strong economic future and a more secure nation.

Participation is easy. By flipping off your lights on March 27th at 8:30 p.m. local time you will be making the switch to a cleaner, more secure nation and prosperous America. View the toolkits, to find out what else you can do to get involved including leading the Earth Hour movement in your community.

Set Your Clock

On Saturday, March 27, 2010 at 8:30 p.m. local time, Earth Hour will once again cascade around the globe, from New Zealand to Hawaii

Sparking a Movement

Since its inception three years ago, Earth Hour’s non-partisan approach has captured the world’s imagination and became a global phenomenon. Nearly one billion people turned out for Earth Hour 2009 – involving 4,100 cities in 87 countries on seven continents.

Last year, 80 million Americans and 318 U.S. cities officially voted for action with their light switch, joining iconic landmarks from around the world that went dark for Earth Hour, including:

• Empire State Building
• Brooklyn Bridge
• Broadway Theater Marquees
• Las Vegas Strip
• United Nations Headquarters
• Golden Gate Bridge
• Seattle’s Space Needle
• Church of Latter-Day Saints Temple
• Gateway Arch in St. Louis
• Great Pyramids of Giza
• Acropolis and Parthenon in Athens
• Christ the Redeemer Statue in Rio de Janeiro
• St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City
• Big Ben and Houses of Parliament in London
• Elysee Palace and Eiffel Tower in Paris
• Beijing’s Birds Nest and Water Cube
• Symphony of Lights in Hong Kong
• Sydney’s Opera House

more info

Tell Your Legislators To Support The Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310)

Take action here.

DIRT! The Movie explains:

The Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310) in the House and the Appalachia Restoration Act (S. 696) in the Senate—will sharply reduce mountaintop removal coal mining. These bills will protect the quality of life for Appalachian coalfield residents who face multiple challenges as a result of mountaintop removal coal mining.

eco woes: Obama continues to disappoint

If you've been following Obama Watch: The Environment on The Colonic, it should come as no surprise that my profound disappointment in Obama only grows. (Note my shock that the League of Conseravtion Voters rated him a B+...more on this in another post).

Earlier this week, Obama announced a loan guarentee of $8.3 billion for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia.

In his speech, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision as part of a broad strategy
to increase employment and the generation of clean power. But he also made clear
that the move was a bid to gain Republican support for a broader energy
bill.

...Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Republican Senate leader, Mitch
McConnell, said that Mr. McConnell had repeatedly praised Mr. Obama for favoring
additional loan guarantees for nuclear power plants. But, he said, this would
not translate into support for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

“It won’t cause Republicans to support the national energy tax,” Mr.
Stewart said. He added that Republican and Democratic ideas on energy policy
overlapped in some areas, but that much of Mr. Obama’s energy program did not
fall into those areas. full article

In short, 3 things have happened:

a) Obama has taken a step backward in clean energy and conservation.
b) The regression will not even have the added benefit of garnering Republican support for energy reform.
c) Environmentalists are not happy.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, whose political arm endorsed
Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president, said that Mr. Obama’s recent policy
emphasis amounted to “unilateral disarmament.”

“We were hopeful last year; he was saying all the right things,” Mr. Pica
said. “But now he has become a full-blown nuclear power proponent, a startling
change over the last few months.”

“I think we all had higher hopes,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel for the
Center for Biological Diversity. “We expected a lot in the first year, and
everyone agrees they didn’t quite live up to it. But there is recognition that
he and the whole administration will get another stab at it.”
Mr. Snape said
his group was particularly disappointed that the administration did not
designate the polar bear as endangered by global warming and that it could not
push a climate change bill through Congress.

“You can’t get anything right,” he said, “unless you get the polar bear
right.”

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one
of the administration’s most stalwart supporters up to now, also expressed
disappointment in the president’s new focus on nuclear power and his mention in
the State of the Union address of “clean coal technologies.” full article

Obama pushes for coal

Finally Barack Obama takes a break from health care reform and shouts a holler to energy legislation...of sorts.

On Friday, Obama spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on energy and the environment, and called for “the best use of resources we have in abundance, through clean coal technology, safe nuclear power, sustainably grown biofuels and energy we harness from wind, waves and sun.” full article

Wow. Wait to start with a bang. "Clean" coal and "safe" nuclear?

Naturally, The Colonic is not surprised, seeing how Mr. Yes We Can rejected FOIA requests for Secret Service logs revealing the identities of big coal executives visiting the White House.

Can we be fair and say that Obama is pulling the strategic political strings by touting clean coal and nuclear, and tacking on renewables at the end?

Maaaayyybbbeee. But probably not. Change We Can Believe In handed the FDA over to Monsanto, attempted to suppress the democratic process of FOIA requests to hide his meetings with coal companies, and has done nothing of substance in to merit a leadership role in time for Copenhagen.

call in for a clean climate

Call your Senators today and tell them to pass a strong clean energy bill. Take action here.

COAL IN THE WATER, part II

Here's a picture of life near a coal companies in West Virginia:

In fact, her entire family tries to avoid any contact with the water. Her youngest son has scabs on his arms, legs and chest where the bathwater — polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals — caused painful rashes. Many of his brother’s teeth were capped to replace enamel that was eaten away.

Neighbors apply special lotions after showering because their skin burns. Tests show that their tap water contains arsenic, barium, lead, manganese and other chemicals at concentrations federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system.

Despite lawsuits, state regulators have not punished these companies for breaking pollution laws. read the full article

In case you missed my post urging action against Verizon for sponsoring a large pro-coal rally, check it out. Again, if you use Verizon, this is a great time to drop it like it's hot.

Hey USDA, keep GE trees away

You have to wonder, in whose interest does the USDA operate?

Here’s a great idea: Let's bring into our country a genetically-engineered, non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let's clone thousands of these living firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states, allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native environments.

Once this eucalyptus tree is released into the wild, who knows how far and wide the seed will contaminate, dominate, and who knows what else. Despite the potential for catastrophe, the USDA welcomed ArborGen's genetically modified tree into the United States after New Zealand, which has outlawed genetically engineered crops, gave it the boot. The tree is one final approval away from being released into the wild.

Why did ArborGen make this freaky tree to begin with? The eucalyptus has been modified to create more cellulose, which can then be used to create more ethanol.

This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America's native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees. full article

Take action here

sending fake lettes to Congress--how low will coal go?

We all know coal is a source of dirty energy, that "clean coal" is still dirty energy...but perhaps the dirtiest of all is the politics of the coal industry.

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), an alliance of coal and utility companies, hired Alexandria, Va.-based Hawthorn Group for the new effort. Hawthorn worked for the coal group earlier this year, coordinating outreach on the House climate bill. During that project, Hawthorn subcontractor Bonner & Associates sent at least three members of Congress a total of 12 fraudulent letters purporting to be from groups opposed to the legislation.

It gets worse. Enter "America's Power Army," a group of 225,000 alleged volunteers who will be storming town halls and other community forums with a pro-coal agenda.

But much about the identity of the volunteers and how they operate is hidden from public view, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a watchdog group.

"These public policy debates are too important to have the outcomes hinge on these fake AstroTurf campaigns" that employ "guerilla tactics," Slocum said. "We're all just left guessing what entities are doing and how lawmakers are influenced by what may be a very corporate-run campaign."

Lawmakers, as well, Slocum said, need to know whether concerns they are hearing in their districts and states are organic "or whether it's being orchestrated by hired guns working for the coal industry." full article

And since Obama tries to hide his secret meetings with the coal industry, I have to get a little Thomas Friedman:

"Attention all young Americans: Your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway....Play hardball or don't play at all."

Want to do more? Get involved here.

Obama's dirty little (energy) secrets

While the recent House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a historic "first" in the battle against climate change--with Waxman, Markey, and Gore all reiterating the "first of many" mantra to climate activists--skepticism is just as appropriate, if not more, as celebration.

Eyebrows first went up when the bill called for the repeal of key provisions in the Clean Air Act, leaving no carbon regulation of coal-fired plants. One can only imagine that the effect will be similar to mischievous children who are not supervised or disciplined.

Then, earlier this morning as I was reading a blog post on the Obama Administration's lack of full disclosure and re-defining of the Freedom of Information Act, I also learned that Obama rejected the FOIA request for Secret Service logs revealing the identities of big coal executives visiting the White House. Despite the fact that as a Senator, Obama criticized Bush for his secret meetings with oil execs, Obama has pulled the same stunt to discuss "clean energy."

I get the fact that there are only 32 Democratic Senators and 157 Democratic Representatives that are from less-than-average coal-reliant states and that compromise for the sake of political viability is a shady game that must be played--but denying public and legal requests for information and holding secret meetings is a step too far, especially for a president who built his platform on transparency.

call your reps now to add additional solar and wind to climate bill

On a conference call with Al Gore, the Repower Campaign, and climate "superactivists" from around the nation, Al Gore announced that the Clean Energy and Security Act--also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill or ACES--would be on the floor Friday for a vote.

Since then, climate coalitions and individual citizens have been working non-stop to advocate for a stronger, better bill.

Here's the deal: ACES doesn't offer any more wind and solar than the Department of Energy already has in the works. Since Speaker Pelosi decides which ammendments are voted on and which are not, please call your member of Congress and tell him/her:

"ask Speaker Pelosi to support the Titus-Giffords-Heinrich clean energy amendment."

Then report your call to MoveOn here (you'll have to click on the "the contact info is NOT correct box" because I can't seem to get a blank form without my rep's name on it.

Don't know who your member of Congress is? Find out here.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approves sketchy energy bill

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved of a sketchy energy bill that would open up oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and does not include any mandatory reductions in heat-trapping gases (although another Senate committee is focusing on this aspect).

The bill also calls for utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from wind and solar by 2021--a weaker target than the current House bill.

The New York Times reports:

The energy bill includes money for clean energy technologies and training for workers in new energy-related industries. It calls for expansion of the nation’s stockpiles of petroleum reserves to deal with sudden shortages or steep price increases. It provides federal incentives for projects to capture and store carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, and encourages a solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste. full article

Both Republicans and Democrats are hoping to strengthen the bill, for their respective positions, on the floor.

Not promising.

climate conference call with Reps Waxman and Markey

Earlier today, I joined climate advocates across the nation on a conference call with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) to discuss the American Clean Energy and Security Act, otherwise known as the Waxman-Markey Bill or ACES. The call was co-sponsored by 1Sky and the Energy Action Coalition.

While Rep. Waxman rattled off some of the key provisions of the bill in his opening statement, Rep. Markey followed up with a grim report of Republican opposition--including references to green jobs as "sub-prime" jobs and "paper machete" jobs. Even more ominious, he explained the alternative plan generated by our friends across the aisle: more and more coal. Rep. Markey likened the climate-change skepticism and heavy coal initiative as "going from one pack of Camels a day to two packs of Camels a day."

However if Rep. Markey thought the only skepticism was coming from the GOP, he was mistaken. Climate advocates are wary of ACES, calling the renewable energy standards (RES) inefficient, offsets inadequate, the role of nuclear and coal questionable, and the helplessness of the EPA as unacceptable. The conversation was an hour long, but here are points that I found most critical:

• In response to credits awarded to nuclear and the acceptance of coal as an energy source, Rep. Waxman reiterated that nuclear energy is not considered renewable. However, he did stress that the main goal of this intiative is to reduce carbon emission. If industries can reduce emissions while adapting coal use to new targets, that is acceptable. The objective is to keep pressing down on total carbon emissions. While both members understand that coal is a heavy contributor to emissions, so long as reductions are met, we are ahead of the game. In short, coal can be a part of our energy future so long as reductions are met, and the coal is produced on our own turf as a measure of domestic security.

• In response to concerns that standards are not tight enough, the members explained that this bill simply provides a floor, but not a ceiling. The only exception is that, in terms of cap-and-trade, states must refrain from running their own cap-and-trade systems from 2012-2017 so that the national program can be put in place. During this time, however, states may tighten emissions standards. Under ACES, states will also receive money for research in efficiency and renewables.
  

• In response to concern that ACES does not meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) targets, the members explained that the projected reductions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 will actually be upwards of 23% in consideration of allowances aimed at preventing tropical deforestation. Rep. Markey also added that this is a first step--one that has happened far too late, thanks to the last administration--and that new bills considering current scientific findings will be introduced in years to come. These issues will be monitored as we go forward.
  

• As for uproar that 85% of allowances will be given away for free to polluters under the cap-and-trade system, staffers asserted that this is an incorrect statement. The configuration of 85% of total permits awarded for free to polluters is inaccurate, because this number also includes allowances that will be given to individual states, consumers, and in helping businesses transition. Additionally, 100% auction would pass enormous costs onto consumers in electricity bills. The current initiative is aimed to ease the transition, which will currently cost Americans less than a postage stamp a day (unlike Republican claims that this will cost families thousands of dollars).

• Vague answers include whether or not offsets, which can be purchased by companies as a means of meeting reductions, will undermine the bill through over-relying on offsets, incentives to create useless projects to produce offsets, or sub-par offsets. Staffers assured that the bill has 50 pages of detailed text to create quality offsets and agreements between countries to ensure that international offsets are as high in quality as domestic offsets.
  

• Lastly, answers provided to explain the inability of the EPA to regulate coal plants were entirely unclear to me. Staffers explained that consensus and creating a coalition on this bill is key, and that performance standards for coal are going forward. When the recording of the conference is released, I will re-examine this issue. I heard no answer the first time around.
  

I will say that I am content with giving away some free allowances for the time being, with the understanding that these allowances will have a variety of recipients (and therefore retract my harsh criticisms against Obama on this issue), not just high-polluting industries. I get that coal is going nowhere fast, that we need to wait for a renewable market to kick in and emerging technologies to drive this process forward--but I am not satisfied by stripping the EPA of its authority. I am not sure of the details, so this is something that will be revisited on The Colonic soon.

Stay tuned!

Declare your independence from dirty energy

This Independence Day, take action against dirty energy from June 27th-July4th. We need to call on President Obama and Congress to create strong and effective energy policy and to hold polluters accountable.

Get ideas and organize an event here.

Or locate events in your area.

For all of you Colonic readers, I will be organizing something in the LA area, but need to work out a few particulars before I register my event. If you're interested, please email me.

aged pipes leak in nuclear power plant

Corroded pipes remind the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that--shocker--infrastructure that is decades old must be monitored.

Indian Point 2, whose 40-year operating license expires in 2013, already faces harsh criticism from New York State and county officials who want it shut down.

...One argument raised by New York State in opposing extension of the license of Indian Point 2 or the adjacent Indian Point 3 reactor is that crucial components are aging in ways that the operators may not anticipate or understand. Read full article