The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com: Stories by Suemedha Sood

Turning Sewage Into Evian

Suemedha Sood — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:10:12 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Orange County has opened the world's largest water reclamation plant that will turn 70 million gallons of sewage into drinkable water each day.

The measure is being taken to fend off the probability that the OC's fresh water supply can't keep up with its growing population--currently 2.3 million. The state-of-the-art Advanced Water Purification Facility uses a purification system that takes up 20 acres and costs about $490 million.

LA Times shows how it works here.

The OCWD hopes to eventually pump out 130 million gallons of safe drinking water a day. The system uses less energy than it takes to transport the same amount of water from other parts of the state. However, the conversion from wastewater to clean water is a process that may take months.

California's Oily Justices

Suemedha Sood — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:47:50 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Former employee Braxton Berkley was one of hundreds to sue Lockheed Martin and other chemical supply companies—some of which are among the world’s largest oil companies—for injuries resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals. Berkley, who says the injuries resulted from his work on military planes, appealed his case to the California Supreme Court. But the case was dismissed.

Why? Four out of seven justices held stock in some of those oil companies, and therefore couldn’t rule on the case.

This NYTimes editorial sums it up best:

It’s a crazy — and unacceptable — way to run a court. The justices should be required to put their financial holdings in a blind trust. Instead, California requires judges to follow their investments so they can recuse themselves in cases where there is a conflict.

Bush on Energy

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:40:21 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Last night, in his quick blurb on energy policy, Bush talked about "a new generation of clean energy technology" including those that can "generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. "

Here's what I want to know: when exactly is this new generation going to be born? And who's giving birth to it? Because as it stands now, there are no commercially viable carbon-capture-and-storage plants anywhere in the world. And the technology may not be viable for years, if not decades.

"It is clear that Congress does not 'get it,'" says James Hansen, the leading climate scientist who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "They stand ready to set a goal of 60% reductions, 80%, 90%! Horse manure."

Here's more from Hansen, from his essay based on his testimony to the Iowa Utilities Board:
Over the past year, it's become clear that the way the political and environmental communities are approaching global warming isn't going to solve it. Books by Al Gore and Tim Flannery, for example, admonish people to use less energy and reduce carbon emissions; the Kyoto Protocol [PDF] calls for an emissions reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels; and politicians around the world are mandating sizable reductions in carbon emissions by 2050. But without a plan of action that prioritizes tackling emissions from coal plants, such goals are ineffectual--and the politicians will either be in retirement homes or dead by 2050.
Here's what needs to happen, says Hansen:

Enforce a moratorium on new coal power plants in developing countries until carbon-capture-and-storage technology is viable.
Do the same in developing countries.
Phase out existing coal plants and replace with wind, solar, and nuclear power (and coal with CCS when viable).

"All existing coal power plants without carbon capture must be bulldozed by 2050," he concludes.

Don't Drink the Water: Clean Coal's Downside

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:35:58 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Merle Wertman, now 62, was diagnosed with Polycythemia Vera five years ago. He had no idea what Polycythemia Vera was. That isn't surprising, considering less than one in 100,000 Americans a year are diagnosed with the extremely rare form of bone marrow cancer, that causes an abnormal increase in blood cells. What is surprising is that Wertman is one of 131 people near his hometown of Tamaqua, Penn., now battling this rare cancer.

In eastern Pennsylvania's Carbon, Luzerne, and Schuylkill counties, that surround the Tamaqua borough, the rate of the rare blood cancer is 4.5 times the national rate, according to data from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency of the Dept. of Health and Human Services. The cancer "cluster" (shown on the map below) follows along Ben Titus Road, next to the Big Gorilla coal combustion waste dump of the Northeastern Power Co. The area is also home to the Superfund sites McAdoo Associates, Air Product & Chemicals Inc., Expert Management Inc. and ICI Americas Inc.

"They have no idea what it comes from. Nobody knows," said Wertman. "Is it the environment, is it the water? No one knows." A retired prison guard, Wertman has lived in and around Tamaqua his entire life. He gets angry when he thinks about the blood cancer rate in his hometown and the lack of accountability for its causes. "The Department of Health in Pennsylvania sucks," he said. "[They] say there's nothing wrong with the environment around here…It's bullshit, back and forth."

While multiple environmental factors could well be at play, much evidence points to the waste produced by coal-fired energy plants. "Although the ATSDR did not report a specific link between polycythemia vera and fly ash [a type of coal ash]," said Dante Picciano, a local scientist and environmentalist active on the issue of coal ash dumping, "we believe that the relationship between the two should be at the top of the list for any investigations into the specific cause of the rare cancer."

This is also of concern to Dr. Paul Roda, an oncologist and hematologist who is now treating roughly one-third of the PV patients in the area. "In my mind," he said, "it's certainly a cluster. You don't see that many cases in a very small area -- particularly a very low population area."

Roda did point out that another cause could be the materials dumped at the nearby McAdoo superfund site. In the 1970s, toxic chemicals were dumped down a mine ventilation shaft, which led to the Environmental Protection Agency classifying it as a superfund site. "We haven't done enough studies to know if this is due to coal ash or the material that was dumped down the site." Roda said.

In many areas, where residents get their water from wells, those toxins dissolve directly into the drinking water. Coal combustion waste, or coal ash, is the solid waste byproduct created when coal is burned. One million railroad cars could be filled with the amount of coal ash produced from coal combustion in the United States each year. When coal combustion waste is disposed in a dump site -- usually a mine, landfill, waste pond or out in the open in a sand-and-gravel pit -- the toxins from the ash can leach into the groundwater and surface water, often migrating to the drinking water. In many areas, where residents get their water from wells, those toxins dissolve directly into the drinking water.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own research, coal ash dumping can lead to higher rates of cancer, developmental problems in children and adverse effects in women of child-bearing age. Despite the fact that coal ash contains mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium, beryllium, and other toxic metals, the EPA has yet to categorize coal ash as hazardous waste. In addition, coal ash has been found to be up to 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste, due to the concentrations of uranium and thorium that increase 10-fold after coal is burned.

But Northeastern Power Co. Plant Manager Edward Missal says he isn't aware of any links between coal ash dumping and cancer. "The EPA has taken a look at that and pretty much ruled that out as far as what I'm under the understanding of," he said.

The solid waste side of coal is being overlooked as environmentalists focus their attention on air pollution and as government agencies and coal companies push "clean" coal technologies. "Cleaner" coal technologies actually produce more toxic coal ash in the resulting solid wase than "dirty" coal technologies, says Jeff Stant of the Clean Air Task Force. These technologies pulverize low-grade fuels in a way that releases fewer pollutants into the air. But those pollutants have to go somewhere, and they end up as ash.

Stant was a contributing author for a recently released report investigating 15 mine disposal sites in Pennsylvania, most of which are dumping sites for ash from Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC), a "clean" coal technology. The study...found coal ash to be contaminating the groundwater and surface water at levels exceeding federal drinking water standards by 30 to 40 times. The study, entitled "Impacts on Water Quality from Placement of Coal Combustion Waste in Pennsylvania Coal Mines," found coal ash to be contaminating the groundwater and surface water at levels exceeding federal drinking water standards by 30 to 40 times.

"Clean" FBC plants produce at least five times more coal ash by volume than standard plants do. These plants inject limestone into the burn chamber to capture more emissions and therefore release fewer emissions-thus the misnomer, "clean." But, the limestone leaves behind a burned residual, which ends up in the ash. The bigger problem is that "clean" plants burn more waste-coal than actual coal. Waste-coal consists of the impurities removed from coal in addition to some coal itself, and it contains an ash content that's three times higher than regular coal. Most of the new "clean" coal plants proposed in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and other states will be located next to mines expected to serve as dump sites for coal ash.

The Department of Energy and the coal companies actually promote coal ash disposal as a "clean coal technology." The following methods for disposal are being promoted as "beneficial" uses for the environment: mine-filling, agricultural use, use in cement, incorporation into concrete, and use in wallboards. The DOE and the coal industry say these uses are eco-friendly. They say that dumping in mines -- or "mine reclamation" as they call it -- will clean up the water draining from mines by lowering its acidity. The opposite is actually true, according to the Pennsylvania study, which found that in two-thirds of the sites, more toxic concentrations known to leach from ash were measured in the water after the ash was dumped in the mines. When used for soil amendment in agricultural use, the toxic metals from the ash can be taken up by plants and, again, leech out of the soil into the groundwater. The toxins in the ash can potentially pose problems in cement and concrete, especially in unmonitored facilities.

"I have never seen levels of lead in a mine pool of that magnitude," says Robert Gadinski, another contributing author of the report. "And that includes lead sites where lead waste is supposed to be dumped. One example -- at Marjol Battery in Scranton, Penn., where they dump battery casings and battery waste--even at that site, we never found lead at such high levels."

Gadinski, a geologist retired from Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, knows about the dangers of coal ash. That's why he was none too pleased when he first read in the newspaper about a plan by PPL Utilities to start dumping coal ash in the mine by his house in Mowry, Pennsylvania. "I know that there are mine tunnels from the valley where I live into these mine workings," Gadinski said. "Any water that comes out of it is going to drain into the valley and go right to the groundwater. Hundreds of wells are at risk here."

A month later, PPL was ordered by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection to clean up a spill of 100 million gallons of coal ash in the Delaware River due to the toxic and carcinogenic nature of the discharge. "And that's the same stuff they want to dump here, saying it's beneficial," said Gadinski referring to the Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Gadinksi has been fighting the initiative for three years, filing complaints with the state government and appealing the matter to the federal government's Office of Surface Mining. All to no avail. Though the project was on hold while a new co-generation plant (Schuylkill Energy) took over, the Dept. of Environmental Protection still supports plans to go forward.

The EPA acknowledges that coal ash dumping has contaminated the water at levels exceeding federal drinking water standards in Indiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The only reason more cases have not been documented is that most dump sites lack monitoring systems to detect contamination, says Lisa Evans, an attorney with the Earth Justice environmental group.

"Where we're finding cases of damage is where there is monitoring data," said Evans. "But it's not where the worst disposal practices are. [For example,] data from around 2000 showed that Wisconsin had more sites with contaminated water than other states, but that's because Wisconsin actually had a better state program, so they were able to detect the contamination." Evans insists that even though hard data has only been documented in certain states, "this is really an issue everywhere you have coal and don't have strict regulations for its disposal."

Certainly it suggests that there's something environmental in that area that would promote an increased instance of that disease. The EPA released a report publicizing the health risks of coal ash dumping in 2000. Eight years later, the agency has still taken no action to regulate disposal practices. In August 2007, the agency released a Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Wastes requesting public comments on the data. Now, in the coming weeks, environmental groups will submit their comments and proposals to the EPA, calling for stricter regulations, better monitoring, and investigations to obtain data on coal ash dump sites all over the country.

Whether anything will actually come of this is debatable. Wertman, the former prison guard from Tamaqua, says that in his hometown, politics gets in the way of tackling any of the environmental factors that could have caused his illness.

He talks about a specific case in which the ATSDR admitted that Polycythemia Vera can be tied to environmental factors. Soon after the the public health agency published an abstract (available here) reporting this information in Blood, the science journal for the American Society of Hematology, agency officials started backpedaling. Now, anyone who tries searching for this information on the agency's website will find a statement contradicting the agency's own findings by claiming, "No link has been found between environmental factors and PV cases in the Pennsylvania counties Schuylkill, Luzerne and Carbon."

Dr. Zev Wainberg, an oncologist/hematologist at the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital, said that the high rates of such a rare disease in this area are surprising. "Certainly it suggests, " Wainberg said in an interview, "that there's something environmental in that area that would promote an increased instance of that disease. Because this is an uncommon disease -- it's not a disease that affects that many people, typically, in a small population. But that being said, it's a lot easier to say that than it is to prove it."

Clean Coal Continued

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:38:07 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

I reported today on the potential for coal ash dumping to contaminate drinking water. But, the problem doesn't stop at water.

Earlier this month in Gambrills, Md., airborne fly ash was found on homes, a playground and a senior citizens development near the BBSS ash dump, a sand-and-gravel dump site for Constellation Energy, a utility company based in Baltimore. The environmental advocacy group Environment Maryland released a report finding fly ash at all 12 locations it inspected around the dump in the Gambrills neighborhood of Anne Arundel County.

The potential health risks associated with inhaling fly ash are caused by its fine, dust-like consistency, said Anne Arundel County Deputy Health Officer Katherine Farrell.

"Most particulate matter is filtered out in the upper airway," said Farrell, "so people cough it up. But very fine particulate matter [like fly ash] can reach the deep lung and then there’s a concern because there are no clearance mechanisms.” In other words, fly ash can get stuck in the deep lungs and stay there, potentially leading to long-term problems such as lung fibrosis.

Farrell also points out that the recent tests that found the fly ash did not use quantitative monitoring, so there is no way to determine how much airborne fly ash the area is dealing with. “We wanted [Constellation Energy] to put air monitoring devices near the plant,' she said, "but they’ve been fighting that."

Constellation’s dumping first became a concern last year when residents learned that coal ash toxins were contaminating the well water. Anne Arundel County health officials alerted the town when they began testing the wells in 2006--7 years after Constellation noticed that its sites were leaking contaminated groundwater. Even after the energy company acknowledged the contamination, it continued dumping for almost a year. Since this acknowledgment, however, the plant has been providing Gambrills residents with bottled water. Now its coal ash waste is being disposed in Richmond and King George County in Virginia.

Constellation is under pressure from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to clean up the water, but this may be a big job, because the plant has been dumping in Gambrills for 12 years.

Plastic Hype?

Suemedha Sood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:11:26 GMT

China recently followed in the footsteps of San Francisco, announcing a ban on free ultrathin plastic bags starting in June, a bold move for a country that produces more plastic bags than any other. If it works, the idea could save China millions of barrels of crude oil a year used in producing the bags.

But will it work? Although the effort is getting a positive response from the international community, the people actually affected seem skeptical. First, there’s the matter of enforcement. The ban is only on ultrathin (or "flimsy") bags while others face a tax, so enforcement could be fairly difficult. Will the government actually devote resources to plastic bag inspection? And then there’s the question of the 100-plus plastic shopping bag producers. The China Plastic Processing Industry Association is doing a survey to gauge reaction among workers, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be positive. When Taiwain instituted a similar ban, factories organized protests.

The idea, I suppose, is that the plastic industry will be just fine because the demand for shopping bags is less than elastic. If that’s the case, will the country really end up with fewer bags? Sure, the ban is joined by governmental efforts to encourage recylcing; but, that once again raises the question of enforcement.

There’s also a small chance that exporters could start providing plastic bag, since the ban is only on domestic producers.

Despite the potential concerns, other countries are joining the movement to crack down on plastic bags. Australia has announced that it wants to develop a plan to phase out plastic bags by the end of 2008. And Israel started the new year with a law charging customers for every plastic bag they take from the grocery store. New York has taken a step in the same direction by passing a bill a couple weeks ago that would require large stores to recycle plastic bags and provide recycling bins so patrons can

McCain, Scwarzenegger Get Chummy Over Tree Hugging

Suemedha Sood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:48:45 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Gov. Schwarzenegger officially endorsed McCain yesterday, citing his record on the environment. He talked about McCain being good for both the environment and the economy. Wait, you mean the environment and the economy aren't archenemies?? The California governor appropriately made his announcement at a solar-roofing company in downtown L.A.

Schwarzenegger:

There are people out there that talk about reaching across the aisle, but [McCain] has shown the action over and over again...He's also a crusader to end wasteful spending in Washington, which is so important; and he's a crusader, has a great vision, in protecting the environment and also protecting the economy.

See, This is What I was Talking About

Suemedha Sood — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:54:30 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The Bush administration has confirmed my skepticism about carbon capture and storage plants opening anytime soon. Last week, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced that the Bush administration is pulling its support for FutureGen, the federal government's project to launch a carbon capture plant.

The reason, unsurprisingly, is money. It looks like the project would cost around $1.8 billion, which is twice as much as the feds expected. The FutureGen alliance will take its case to Congress, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Just How Green Can An Airline Be?

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:18:04 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Air France-KLM announced a plan last week that could significantly cut aircraft emissions. The airline will invest $2.9 Billion (€2 Billion) a year—about 10 percent of its annual revenue— to replace older, fuel-guzzling planes with greener, more fuel efficient aircraft.

Airline emissions only account for about 3 percent of CO2 emissions, but they are rapidly increasing because air traffic is growing by 3.1 percent a year. “Even though 3 percent doesn’t sound like a lot, it’s not negligible,” said the climate scientist Richard Somerville, who is at the University of California’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Airline mileage grows more than airline fuel efficiency improves each year. It’s not a huge problem, but it’s not insignificant and it’s growing.”

Yet the climatologist Mark Chandler of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says that 3 percent translates into a sizable carbon footprint. "The fact of the matter," Chandler said, "is that's actually a huge number. If you take all the different industries that produce emissions, very few of them are so high." The carbon footprint measures the impact that human activities have on the environment, by way of greenhouse gases, in units of carbon dioxide.

With the announcement of its climate action plan, Air France-KLM becomes part of the airline industry's current effort to address the issue of fuel consumption. One reason is that it is better for business, as concern about global warming grows. But emissions reduction projects not only give airlines a green image, they also help save money as fuel prices rise. Some airline leaders are even talking about alternative fuels -- which can be less expensive than petroleum-based fuel. Many scientists say, however, that fuel efficiency may be the most effective way for the airline industry to tackle climate change.

The airline industry has improved its fuel efficiency by 20 percent in the last 10 years as a result of improved engine and aircraft technology as well as streamlined operating procedures. According to the French Civil Aviation Authority, 20 percent of the world’s older aircrafts produce 60 percent of air transport CO2 emissions. That’s one reason why Air France is focusing its climate action plan on modernizing its fleets.

Pierre Caussade, senior VP of environment and quality for Air France, says that by 2012, the airline hopes to lower CO2 emissions for overseas travel by 20 percent and lower domestic emissions by 5 percent. The company's climate action plan also includes measures to reduce noise pollution.

“Usually we phase out very old aircraft,” said Caussade, “sometimes 30 years old. Now we are in the process of replacing quite recent aircraft.” Fifteen of the relatively new Boeing 747s -- only in service since 2002 -- will be replaced with the more fuel efficient Boeing 777s, he said. The 777s use 28 percent less fuel per passenger-km.

Aircraft emissions have a particular impact on climate change, because the greenhouse gases that airplanes release into the stratosphere often remain there. "The impact is bigger than it would be if you had planes flying in the troposhpere," where cars release emissions, said David Levinson, a physical scientist with the National Climate Data Center.

It's not just CO2 that airlines need to worry about...Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and can have a climate impact. It's not just CO2 that airlines need to worry about, Levinson said. "There are things like sulfur emissions from the exhaust," he said, "There's also water vapor [which] even though it seems like it would be innocuous, is actually a concern in the stratosphere. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and can have a climate impact."

Levinson talked about the actions that airlines can take, aside from aircraft changes, to reduce their bulky carbon footprint. "One issue," he said, "is local air quality near airports due to taxi-ing and idling aircraft with their engines on. There's also all the ground equipment."

Air France-KLM has also announced long-term goals of participating in the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. “We are part of the problem, " said Caussade, "so we want to be part of the solution.”

Chandler, of Columbia, says that greening the fleet is a win-win situation for airlines. "Most companies are actually finding," he said, "that if they can meet those kinds of emissions standard, it's essentially like saying, 'We will become a more efficient energy-using company,' which has huge dollar savings. They can do something seen as green that is actually green. And they also end up saving money on it in the long term, particularly with the airlines, which are just getting hammered with high fuel costs right now."

Airlines are an important target for fuel conservation because there are no easy alternatives to fossil fuels. Airlines are an important target for fuel conservation because there are no easy alternatives to fossil fuels. The kerosene used to power aircraft engines requires a number of specifications tied to safety concerns, says the French Institute of Oil. The recipe needs to take into account, for example, freezing cold temperatures at high altitudes and the fumes that clog fuel injectors. Until alternative fuels become commercially viable, the Institute advocates using different oil refining methods to produce more kerosene with the same amount of oil. Future goals, says Air France, include using other raw materials, preferably biomass, to make synthetic kerosene.

Qatar Airways has already beaten Air France—and every other airline in the world—to the punch. On Friday, Qatar flew the first commercial aircraft powered by an alternative fuel in a flight from Filton, Britain, to Toulouse, France. The Airbus A380 sustained a successful three-hour flight, running on Shell GTL (gas-to-liquid) Jet Fuel.

While this alternative fuel may take some of the burden off oil, its environmental advantages are questionable. For starters, there is no difference in CO2 emissions between GTL and regular fuel. GTL’s one benefit, though, is that it produces almost no sulfur, which could help improve local air quality.

“Whether the GTL process is better or worse in terms of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Somerville, the Scripps scientist, “depends on many details. After all, natural gas…is itself a greenhouse gas, [since] natural gas is mainly methane.”

Virgin Atlantic wants to go a step further and become the first airline to use biofuels. The airline hopes to use a biofuel mix derived from either algae or soybeans, combined with some jet fuel, to fly a Boeing 747. While Virgin’s plan to reduce greenhouse gases has greater potential, nothing is certain as of yet.

“Biofuels are complicated too,” Somerville said, “and a lot depends on specifics. How exactly was the biofuel produced? Were there large inputs of energy or water or fertilizer or other materials needed to grow the algae or soybeans, or harvest and process them, or transport them?...Some biofuels, when substituted for fossil fuels, do represent substantial reductions in GHG emissions -- and some do not. The devil is in the details.”

Qatar is looking at a 2009 launch date for commercial use of GTL alternative fuel, while the commercial viability of biofuels in planes has yet to be seen.

Air France is clearly betting that, in time, ecological concerns will become a higher priority for consumers choosing an airline. “In the criteria for consumers to choose one airline from another airline,” said Caussade in an interview, “is the cost of the tickets, the comfort delivered onboard, the safety, the performance. But progressively, the green aspects — the way the company at the corporate level takes into account the environment — will be part of the decision.”

Update: An earlier version of this did not identify climate scientist Richard Somerville, who is at the University of California’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was only identified as Somerville. We regret the error.

Corn's Not Better Than Oil

Suemedha Sood — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:14:12 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

It's not exactly news to most scientists or environmentalists, but two studies by the journal Science say that the production of biofuels can lead to more CO2 emissions than created by fossil fuel. Last week, NASA climatologist Dr. Mark Chandler, one of my sources on airlines and greenhouse gases, had this to say:

Most people have found that biofuels have pretty close to a neutral effect on emissions, because it takes so much energy to produce an acre of corn or something like that. For the most part, biofuels [is] one of those issues where they're sort of marketing it as a green issue, but it's really not-it's a dependence-on-foreign-oil issue. In other markets, it's an excuse to continue those agricultural subsidies as well...One of the problems with biofuels, they've already found out that there's only so much biofuel that can be produced, and when you produce it, you tend to take away from another supply, like food supply, and that tends to drive prices up. Unlike with something like wind or solar power-which are essentially free-the price tends to drop as more people use it. If more people use biofuels, prices can actually rise because it's a limited resource. That's already happened with corn, for example.

In Indonesia, Friends of the Earth and indigenous rights groups Sawit Watch and Life Mosaic have released a report, entitled "Losing Ground," saying that demand for the biofuel palm oil is resulting in human rights abuses and environmental degradation.

The clearing of forests for plantations leaves 60-90 million indigenous people without land, and pesticides and fertilizers are polluting some villages' water supply, the report says. The palm oil industry is infringing heavily upon local economy, converting what was once a self-sufficient community into a struggling one.

"Losing Ground"also brings to light 513 conflicts over land between the local communities and the palm oil companies, monitored by Sawit Watch last month. A community leader interviewed for the report talks about the seizure of land in Sumatra:

This all used to be the community's land! It was all seized [by the company]. It was defending this land that two of our men got killed. They were kidnapped and killed. Just because they wanted to defend this land, close to that [palm oil] factory over there. We do not know who killed them and it has never been investigated.

Who Is the Green Candidate?

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:15:17 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Three big wins last night for both Obama and McCain as voters in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. made it out to vote despite icy conditions. Both claim to be the green candidate, and Obama has been saying that his climate change plan is stronger than McCain's. This comparison between the two on Green Piece Blog is worth noting:

Contrasting Obama vs. McCain on the Environment...

The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain's environmental record a score of 53% while Obama has scored in the high 90's.

McCain opposed Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill that included huge tax giveaways to oil companies with record revenues. Obama supported the bill.

Obama supported a law that required 25% of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by 2025, McCain opposed a similar federal law.

McCain opposed the 2007 Energy Bill written by Democrats which mandated improved vehicle fuel economy standards by 2020, Obama supported the bill.

Obama did not join McCain and 44 other Republican and Democratic Senators in urging the Environmental Protection Agency to draft stricter Mercury restrictions.

More Murmurings of a Carbon Tax

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:50:19 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office said yesterday that a carbon tax is the most economically effective way to battle climate change, reports Environment & Energy Daily. A CBO study requested by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) found that a carbon tax would be more efficient than market-based, cap-and-trade systems.

This is bad news to many members of Congress who have been fending off such a measure, which will make them unpopular with major industry players.

Read the full report.

Coal-Powered Plant Sparks Controversy

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:34:19 GMT

PART ONE

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley can't wait for the Desert Rock coal-fired energy plant to be approved. That's why he's planning to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its failure to rule on the project's long-awaited air permit. The agency began assessing the application four years ago.

Usually the process takes about a year. This is longer, the EPA spokesperson Francisco Arcaute said, "due to the complexity of the Desert Rock facility and the high level of public interest." One factor may be that, if approved, the plant will be within a 15-mile radius of two of the country's largest coal plants.

Desert Rock is designed for northwest New Mexico, roughly 20 miles south of Shiprock. The Navajo Nation covers 27,000 square miles, extending into New Mexico, Arizona and Utah. Pollution from the prospective plant could affect communities in this entire Four Corners area. The $3-billion project is a partnership between Dine Power Authority, an enterprise of the Navajo Nation, and Sithe Global Energy. The location is a contentious issue among Navajo citizens, for the plant would be near the Four Corners Power Plant and the San Juan Generating Station.

Local citizens' groups are fighting Desert Rock and the environmental problems they say it could bring. Many Navajos say they are worried that the plant will harm the local environment, add to global warming and increase already high rates of respiratory illnesses and other health problems linked to the burning of coal. Desert Rock promoters say, however, that the plant will have stricter emissions regulations than any other coal plant.

The Navajo government commissioned the project to bring revenue and create jobs. The Shirley administration says Desert Rock will generate 1,000 temporary construction jobs, 300 full-time operation jobs and $50 million a year for the Navajo Nation. The proposed plant will generate 1,500 megawatts of energy -- though buyers have yet to be determined.

But Navajo citizens are not convinced this is enough to outweigh the damages the plant could cause to the local environment and to public health. The grass-roots group Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment, or Dine CARE, has released a 168-page report discussing the perceived dangers. In "Energy and Economic Alternatives to the Desert Rock Energy Project," Dine CARE also examines the feasibility of large-scale renewable energy projects. The report is part of a strong local effort to fight Desert Rock.

In July 2007, the Bureau of Indian Affairs held public hearings on the project's environmental impact statement. Navajo citizens submitted 54,000 comments against building the plant. In addition, the EPA received 1,000 letters during its public comment period. This large number of comments may be one reason the agency has taken so long to rule. "It is typical for the majority of comments on a proposed permit to be negative," said Arcaute.

Sithe Global insists that the plant will be the cleanest the country has yet seen. "The air permit," said the Sithe representative, Frank Maisano, "is one of the strictest air permits the EPA will ever issue. Because some local people had concerns about additional regional haze -- because of other power plants in the region -- we have offered to write into an additional agreement with the Navajo Nation stricter limits and offsets for emissions."

Maisano says the plant's supercritical, or high heat, boiler will increase efficiency -- significantly reducing emissions. The technology will capture 98 percent of particulate matter, reduce sulfur and NOx emissions by 95 percent, reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent, Maisano says, and reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent compared to older plants. As a result, the Sithe Global spokesman says, Desert Rock won't present the health risks other plants do. "The regional haze pollution that causes health issues will be virtually nonexistent," said Maisano. By haze pollution, he means particulate matter, mercury and other aerosols.

But a leading climatologist James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the plant will most certainly cause damages to public health, as well as to the local and global environment. "Despite the grievous problems that pollutants such as mercury and particulates cause for individuals," said Hansen, "the most damaging pollutant for humans and other species, by far, is carbon dioxide. [Desert Rock is] not capturing that pollutant at all -- by 20 percent reduction, they mean that the efficiency has been improved, so more energy is obtained per unit fuel. But all of the CO2 in the coal is being released to the air."

Hansen says Sithe Global's claims are "terribly misleading." "Desert Rock is not going to 'reduce' regional emissions," he said. "[T]his is double-speak again--it is going to increase regional emissions, just not as much as the other plants. It is a case of piling on a region that is already suffering from emissions."

Mark Chandler, a climatologist who is also at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, points out that Desert Rock's attempts to limit health risks for the Navajo community will ultimately make the situation worse for global warming. "The classic problem in cleaning up coal plants," said Chandler, "is that coal has a lot of bad things that we don't want in our backyard [like] particulates and mercury...[Eliminating those] is great in terms of cleaning up some of the most obnoxious issues. But it's harmful for the climate change issue. Aerosols in the atmosphere -- a lot of which come from coal burning -- have slowed global warming because aerosols actually reflect some of the sunlight coming to the earth and tend to cool the atmosphere." So, Chandler says, Desert Rock's effort to curb global warming by reducing CO2 emissions will be counteracted by its reduction of other emissions.

As for potential health problems, says Chandler, not just the local community should be concerned. In fact, he said, people living close to a coal plant may not even be affected if they live upwind. But those living thousands of miles away could feel the effects -- if they live downwind. "To give a sense," said Chandler, "of how non-local it is, a lot of pollution in the U.S. is coming from China."

And, said Dine CARE treasurer Lori Goodman, "It's not just what's going up in the air, it's what they're dumping. There's all the coal combustion waste. It's not even regulated by EPA."

Contaminated water from coal combustion wastes has already been a problem for people [living] near the Four Corners and San Juan plants, says Dine CARE spokesman Dialan Long. "Some of the people that I've spoke to," said Long, "have said that they've lost cattle, so a lot of them have stopped taking their livestock to Chaco Wash [the tributary of San Juan river]…It's really easy to point to coal combustion waste because it's the only thing that's there."

Stephen Austin, a senior hydrologist with the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, hasn't heard about livestock dying, but he is aware of concerns about contaminated water. "There have been past complaints," he said, "by local people about cattle, and some have been investigated." Austin says his agency is looking into possible connections between coal waste disposal and water quality. "Some of the water used to slurry [coal] ash may have leeched into the groundwater of the Chaco Wash," he said.

According to Long of Dine CARE, some Navajos say that Desert Rock will lead to the problems of asthma, respiratory diseases, and cancer associated with other plants. "It is erroneous to claim that Desert Rock will not perpetuate these," he said. "We know better."

Dine CARE says that dust from coal mining, greenhouse gas emissions and coal combustion wastes are all causes for concern. Exposure to pollutants can also exacerbate existing health conditions. High health care costs are a big issue on the Navajo Nation, where Indian Health Service clinics are severely underfunded.

The EPA says it is taking all these concerns into account as it moves toward a decision on Desert Rock. "The EPA," said spokesperson Arcaute, "received a large number of comments that focused on the stringency of the emissions limits for certain air pollutants, the adequacy of the air quality modeling, alternative sources of energy, and whether global warming should be considered in the permitting process. A number of comments also focused on mercury emissions and concerns related to environmental justice...[W]e are carefully considering those comments before making a final decision."

The Navajo Nation government says it wants a decision as quickly as possible. "It is taking longer than we think it should," said Hardeen, spokesperson from the president's office. The longer it takes for Desert Rock to get its air permit, he says, the longer the Navajo Nation has to wait for the economic benefits the project promises.

If Desert Rock goes ahead, Shirley says it could generate yearly tax revenue equal to 30 percent of the Navajo Nation's annual spending budget. That would make a big difference to the reservation's struggling economy. Where that money might go, however, is still far from decided.

Residents Holler Back

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:08:56 GMT

Just wanted to respond to a really good point one of our readers--a resident from the area--made on this first installment of the Navajo energy story. skulzfontaine comments:

Just a couple more thoughts. Where does Joe Shirley and the Desert Rock Project, figure they’ll get their water for this monstrosity? The Navajo Nation abrogated their ‘water rights’ to the Colorado River in the last re-negotiation of the Colorado River Compact. One doesn’t read much about that in the news.

Water supply is a huge issue in the region. The folks at Sithe Global say Desert Rock has plans to incorporate water conservation efforts in its operations. Frank Maisano told me they're planning on a hybrid dry cooling system that will use 85 percent less water than other plants are using. (He says coal-fired plants generally use up to 45,000 acres of water.) By my math, that means Desert Rock will still be using thousands of acres of much needed water, adding to the overall huge amount of water being used by the big plants on the Nation.
skulzfontaine goes on to ask:

Ms. Sood? Did you ask Joe Shirley about the financial benefits for the Navajo Nation from that spiffy new casino they’ve built north of Shiprock? How is Shirley dividing the casino profits with the Navajo people?

Sure enough, President Shirley's office did point to the tribe's first casino--scheduled to open in July--as another governmental effort to drive local economy. Again, where the money will end up is anyone's guess.

Residents Holler Back, Take Two

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:41:54 GMT

I also wanted to respond to skulzfontaine's mention of alcoholism on the Navajo Nation:

These projects NEVER aid or further the hopes of the Navajo people. Alcoholism is Gallup, New Mexico and Gallup is the heart and soul of the Navajo Nation. Joe Shirley should pay a little attention and some of the money he’s got the clenched fist around and help the suffering of his people.

Thought I'd point to this AP story on how the Shirley administration will use casinos to turn a profit -- by allowing alcohol sales on a reservation where it's illegal to drink or sell alcohol. Navajo Nation council delegate Edmund Yazzie asks, "Is there anything positive that can come out of alcohol sales?" He and other delegates hope some of the profit from sales will go to rehab programs.

Navajo Energy Project Powerless

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:00:00 GMT

PART TWO

The proposed Desert Rock energy project in northwest New Mexico could give the Navajo Nation's struggling economy a boost, supporters say. Navajo President Joe Shirley says the coal-powered plant will provide energy to nearby states, create 1,000 construction jobs, 300 full-time operations jobs and generate $50 million a year for the Navajo Nation.

What the power plant won't do, however, is provide electricity to the thousands of Navajos now living without it.

On the Navajo Nation, 18,000 homes lack electricity -- roughly one-third of the population. Many Navajos spend their lives without electric power, because they live in remote areas where it's difficult and expensive to run power lines. The lack of power can result in health and safety risks for these residents, who must find alternative means for light and heat.

The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, or NTUA, which is working on the electrification of these areas, is pressing for solutions using solar and wind power.

Within the last few years, solar-and-wind hybrid systems have been installed in some homes and now 307 Navajo homes are powered by solar energy. While there are limitations, said Larry Ahasteen, the NTUA renewable energy specialist, small-scale projects like this show what solar and wind can do at a lower cost than conventional energy.

The Dept. of Energy has provided $2 million over two years to fund this program. That isn't enough to provide electricity to all who need it, since each solar unit is $18,000. These units produce about 2 Kilowatts a day -- enough to power some lights, a small TV and possibly a small fridge. "It's very limited," said Ahasteen, "We have to really educate our customers on how to manage their load."

But, according to Ahasteen, small-scale solar power is better than the alternative. "A lot of times," he said, "we have families in very isolated areas where it's not feasible to run a power line costing $30,000 per mile. And then you have to maintain that line too."

Providing electricity to this area may be similar to bringing the basics of modern life to other underdeveloped regions. For example, in rural areas of countries like Kenya, communities went from having no telephone land-lines to relying primarily on mobile phones. So planning for Navajo homes to jump to innovative solar technologies is not extraordinary.

Small-scale solar or wind projects are in fact providing a model for anti-coal groups like Dine´ Citizens Against Ruining our Environment, or Dine´ CARE, to build on. Dine´ CARE's recent study, "Energy and Economic Alternatives to the Desert Rock Energy Project," lays out an argument for replacing the coal plant with a large-scale project that would use sunlight, wind, and natural gas. The report suggests it is possible to generate up to 48,000 megawatts of solar energy on Navajo land and up to 11,000 megawatts of wind power on tribal lands in northeastern Arizona.

The group claims that this could create more revenue and more jobs than Desert Rock. It says that alternative energy could create 2,000 construction jobs and 500 full-time jobs.

The spokesman for Sithe Global Energy, the company behind Desert Rock, strongly disagreed. "They don't know what they're talking about," said Frank Maisano, the spokesman. "We build plants for a living, so we know what we're talking about."

Maisano says renewable energy projects should not be done alone. "I'm an advocate for renewables," he said. "We need to have both renewables and the coal project. It can't be one or the other. It has to be both. For those who say renewables can do more and create more jobs, they're wrong…They can't produce the baseload power that the region needs."

George Hardeen, communications director for the Office of the President of the Navajo Nation, which supports the coal-powered plant, agrees. "What they're recommending," he said, talking about Dine´ CARE, "is simply not feasible. Where are you going to get the land to put solar panels up that will equal the amount of electricity Desert Rock will create?"

But William Beckman, the director of the University of Wisconsin's Solar Energy Laboratory, says the region is prime for solar power. Beckman says solar energy's potential is greatest in remote areas of the U.S. Southwest. Photovoltaic, or solar, systems can convert about 10 to 20 percent of incident sunlight into electrcity, he says. In the Southwest, where sunlight is abundant and land inexpensive, this could translate to a lot of energy.

The biggest obstacle to solar energy is usually cost, said Beckman, though this is less of an issue in remote areas. In populated areas, the cost of Photovoltaic-generated energy is higher than the cost of conventional energy; but, in isolated areas, solar plants tend to be more cost effective, Beckman said.

Job creation is also one of solar energy's draws, according to James Mason of the Solar Energy Campaign, a pro-solar group in New York. "Our research indicates that a 1-gigawatt PV manufacturing…creates 15,000 jobs," said Mason, "whereas the same number of jobs for a 1-gigawatt coal plant is 5,000 jobs."

So far, renewable energy projects of the size Dine´ CARE is suggesting have not garnered support from the local Navajo government, which continues to focus on Desert Rock. The Navajo Nation council, which has high hopes for the plant, approved the project by a vote of 66 to 7.

For now, Navajos, some living without power, have only federal government funding to rely on. Even for already existing renewable energy projects, though, funds are sporadic, said Lizana Pierce, project manager for the Dept. of Energy's Tribal Energy Program. But, she said, "Many of the tribes are looking at very large scale. Most of the tribes in the Great Plains are looking at large-scale wind production. In the Southwest, there's predominately a lot of interest in solar."

Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has been able to fund 91 tribal projects. This year, funds will amount to $6 million for such projects. But Pierce's program is relatively small. The Tribal Energy Program -- the only government program working on electrification of tribal lands--employs just five full-time employees.

Even these small-scale projects can bring energy only to those who really need it, one house at a time, said Ahasteen of the NTUA. "Right now, everybody takes it for granted that you have electric power," he said, "but a lot of these families, they don't have nothing. Once you give them the opportunity to get that electric power, whether it's conventional or through renewable, you kind of give an opportunity for that family to be more self-sustaining and be more active."

For many Navajos, electricity is not just a modern convenience. Most families, said Ahasteen, use kerosene lamps for light, wood stoves for heat and propane for cooking--which create serious health risks, not to mention fire hazards. Kerosene, for example, generates a large amount of CO2 inside the confined space of small houses, which, even with ventilation, can be harmful when inhaled.

Mason and his colleagues laid out a model for a national solar energy plan in the January issue of Scientific American magazine. He says their findings are consistent with Dine´CARE's conclusions. According to Scientific American, the "grand solar plan" to use solar energy to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 2050 would require $420 billion in subsides over 39 years.

The Dine´ CARE study on energy alternatives states that the use of renewable natural resources can be viewed as part of traditional Navajo beliefs. According to Navajo fundamental laws, the report says, wind, or Nílch'í, "generates and sustains all life forms," and the sun, manifested by the sun god Jóhonaa'éí, is a "supernatural entity which restores balance after social ills and abuse of freedom and powers wreak havoc in the worlds prior to modernity."

"In Navajo philosophy," the NTUA's Ahasteen said, "Mother Earth is the mother, our sky is our father, we take reverence to that, we give offering, and we protect that…Renewable energy is a Navajo concept because it's using Mother Earth as a way for providing for us."

Desert Rock in a Nutshell

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:03:24 GMT

Check out this cartoon on the contentious Navajo energy project, brought to you by CorpWatch.

Coal Industry Accused of Bribery

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:36:38 GMT

The Kansas power company Sunflower Electric is offering Kansas State University $2.5 million for energy research for 10 years to get support for two new coal-fired plants in Holcomb, KS. The Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment already ruled against air permits for the plants back in October. Some are saying Sunflower's offer to the university is tantamount to bribery. ThinkProgress writes:

The coal industry has sponsored nearly all of CNN’s presidential debates, and has launched a website and TV ads using children to spout its propaganda.
Now Big Coal is trying bribery. Sunflower Electric, a leading Kansas power company, has offered millions to Kansas State University for energy research — that is, if the legislature approves its bid for new coal plants first. Speaker Melvin Neufeld (R) emphasized the large cash gift yesterday as he urged his colleagues to approve the plants...State Rep. Paul Davis (D) said such a bribery scheme was “in poor taste.”

Sources Holler Back

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:47:11 GMT

Just received a follow-up call from Desert Rock spokesman Frank Maisano, responding to our two-part report. Maisano took issue with NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen's claim that Desert Rock won't reduce regional pollution. Here's what Maisano had to say:

I just wanted to mention a couple things to you. One is that my good friend Jim Hansen doesn't know what he's talking about. For once, he obviously speaks more definitively than what he knows. And, you know, generally he might be right about those issues, in reducing the rate of emissions versus typical power plants. But in our case, we actually are reducing beyond because of the agreement [we have with the Navajo Nation]. We're actually doing projects at other places, which I don't think [Hansen] really understands...We plan to reduce overall regional haze pollution by 110 percent.

But this doesn't speak to the point NASA's Mark Chandler raised regarding aerosol emissions. As Chandler notes, reducing regional haze pollution, or aerosols, will actually escalate global warming. Nasty aerosols are the most important things to clean up when it comes to public health--which is by far the biggest concern for people living near coal plants--but clearing those up increases the earth's temperature by allowing more sunlight to break through. One of those teeth-grinding catch-22's of coal.

Furthermore, Maisano told me that NASA's Hansen is wrong when he says that CO2 is a considerable health risk for humans. But Science Daily disagrees, citing a study linking CO2 emissions to human mortality.

Maisano also talked about Desert Rock's take on solar:

The second thing is i wanted to talk to you in more detail about the issue of solar. There's a big difference between distributed solar in households and large-scale solar. I know because we're working on these things. The type of solar you'd have to do to match Desert Rock would cover probably more than 30,000 acres. That's issue number one. The second problem is New Mexico doesn't have good solar opportunities, apparently, because we've looked into it. And of course we are building [solar projects] in places like Nevada and places where they do have good solar opportunities.

I have to say, that surprises me, given that I couldn't find one renewable energy expert who disagreed with the statement that, when it comes to solar, the Southwest is where you want to be building--due to the abundance of sunlight and cheap land. What makes New Mexico the wrong place for solar?

Maisano's point, though, that a large-scale solar project could take up a whole lot of land is well-taken.

Sources Holler Back on Desert Rock, Again

Suemedha Sood — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:01:29 GMT

Last week, Frank Maisano, spokesperson for the Desert Rock coal project, commented on the two-part story we reported. Maisano took issue with the claim made by leading climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, that CO2 emissions are unhealthy for humans. Responding to Maisano's argument, we pointed to a scientific study linking CO2 emissions to human mortality. Here's what Maisano had to say about the study in an email to us:

The only problem with the Jacobsen study is that it is a first of its kind study and gets to the pollution impacts by comparing ozone and particle pollution estimated by increasing temperatures. Clearly I am not as knowledgeable regarding this subject as Dr. Jacobsen and I have great respect for him, but it seems there are way too many complex questions to simply say "carbon dioxide emissions are directly bad for health." I suspect he would agree with that statement more than less. I also wonder if it will take into account the expected mandated reductions in ozone standards that will be implemented in the near term (March 12 EPA is required to announce its new lower standard), as well as longer-term new technology advances that will improve efficiency, therefore reducing carbon emissions. One other issue: the study was released at a very politically-charged time with EPA denying California's waiver to regulate greenhouse gases. Certainly more than coincidence.

Maisano, the Desert Rock promoter, also suggested we post Desert Rock's "Voluntary Regional Air Quality Improvement Plan" so readers can read the energy companies' plans to reduce emissions. Here it is.