Tag Archives: boston

The hottest race of 2013: House climate hawk Markey is gunning for Kerry’s Senate seat

The hottest race of 2013: House climate hawk Markey is gunning for Kerry’s Senate seat

Martha Coakley

Could Ed Markey be the Senate’s newest climate hawk?

The Senate will lose an advocate for climate action when John Kerry becomes secretary of state (assuming he gets confirmed, which seems pretty darn safe to assume). But it could gain another senator who’s just as climate-hawkish if Ed Markey wins the race for Kerry’s soon-to-be-vacated seat.

Rep. Markey (D-Mass.) announced last week that he intends to run in the special election next spring or summer to fill Kerry’s spot. He’s not the only Democrat who’s talking about a run, but he’s the most senior and high-profile, so the establishment swiftly got behind him, hoping to avert a primary fight.

Kerry didn’t outright endorse Markey, but he praised him effusively, calling him “the House’s leading, ardent, and thoughtful protector of the environment.” Kerry continued: “He’s passionate about the issues that Ted Kennedy and I worked on as a team for decades, whether it’s health care or the environment and energy or education.”

Markey is arguably the most passionate, outspoken climate advocate in the House. You might remember him from such legislation as the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, which was passed by the House in 2009 and then died a slow and painful death in the Senate. Markey was the one and only chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming during its existence from 2007 to 2010. Though Republicans killed the committee when they took control of the House two years ago, that hasn’t stopped Markey from pushing energy and climate issues into the spotlight — and writing about his efforts on Grist.

In announcing his candidacy for the Senate, Markey made clear that he plans to keep focusing on energy: “I will not sit back and allow oil and coal industry lobbyists to thwart our clean energy future,” he said. Scott Nathan, chair of the League of Conservation Voters, told The Boston Globe that he was thrilled to back Markey, describing the congressmember as “a champion fighting for the clean-energy economy.”

Now the big, looming question is whether Scott Brown will run for Kerry’s spot from the Republican side. Brown lost his Senate seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in November after a bruising campaign. The two clashed over climate change and energy issues, and environmental groups came out in full force against Brown and for Warren. Here’s what I wrote about Brown during that race:

Scott Brown is one of the more centrist Republicans in the Senate, yet he’s getting a lot of hate from the green community. Brown has bucked his party on wind power, calling for extension of a key wind tax credit that Mitt Romney opposes. But he’s buddied up with Big Oil and the Koch brothers (he’s gotten about $333,000 in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry). He voted to push through the Keystone XL pipeline and maintain oil-industry subsidies (even while claiming said subsidies don’t exist). And he’s been wishywashy on climate science and has opposed EPA’s efforts to regulate CO2.

Brown has been mum on his intentions so far, but many pols and pundits think he’s likely to run. If he does, he’ll be a serious contender. In a mid-December poll of registered Massachusetts voters, 58 percent had a favorable view of him. Markey, by contrast, got just 24 percent favorability, with 27 percent of respondents undecided about him and 33 percent never having heard of him. In a head-to-head matchup, 48 percent of voters preferred Brown compared to 30 percent for Markey.

Markey could close that gap if he runs a strong campaign, but he’s been in a safe seat for decades, so he’s out of practice. Boston Globe columnist Joanna Weiss argues that Markey will need to “find his inner celebrity” if he wants to win. “[A] statewide race, particularly one that’s condensed into a few months, will require Markey to be much flashier than he’s had to be within the halls of Congress.” Markey may be wonky, but he’s been known to pull out the spark and flash. Expect to see a lot more of that in the coming months.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article: 

The hottest race of 2013: House climate hawk Markey is gunning for Kerry’s Senate seat

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The hottest race of 2013: House climate hawk Markey is gunning for Kerry’s Senate seat

California releases draft rules for regulating fracking

California releases draft rules for regulating fracking

Jerry Brown, the once-and-current king (governor) of California, yesterday announced a draft proposal for regulating fracking. Because if there’s one thing California needs, it’s more fissures beneath it. And/or more earthquakes.

Though that’s not the tack Brown took. From the L.A. Times:

The proposed rules, released Tuesday, would require energy companies to disclose for the first time the chemicals they inject deep into the ground to break apart rock and release oil. They also would have to reveal the location of the wells where they use the procedure.

Though fracking has unlocked vast amounts of previously unreachable fossil fuels elsewhere, environmentalists and public health advocates in California have raised safety questions about the hundreds of chemicals used — many of them known carcinogens — and the potential for drinking water contamination.

I mean, nothing about the earthquakes? Well, you’re the governor.

Wikipedia

Oil pumps near I-5.

The region that has oil companies salivating is the Monterey Shale, a stretch of rock running from Modesto through the Central Valley of the state, which some think could contain 300 billion barrels of oil. At today’s per-barrel price, that’s $26.4 trillion dollars sitting under a bunch of walnut groves and cattle ranches.

But California has a … complicated relationship with fossil fuel extractors, dating back to Daniel Plainview’s New Boston strike. It’s been the first (and only) state to enact a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, and voters defended that plan, overcoming millions in oil company funding. Also, California votes Democrat about 90-to-10 (except Southern California).

So you can see the friction. It’s like the San Andreas fault of politics: Big Oil versus the State of California. Even with this draft proposal, there are concerns that the state isn’t creating friction enough.

Environmental and industry groups said the draft regulations were a good first step in what is expected to be a lengthy rule-making process. But environmentalists signaled a coming fight over the level of disclosure, noting a provision that would allow oil companies to withhold disclosure of chemicals they claim to be proprietary. …

A recent analysis by Bloomberg News found that companies nationwide withheld from their disclosure reports one out of every five chemicals they used in fracking.

The “lengthy rule-making process” can’t happen fast enough. As the Times notes, a federal auction last week in Sacramento leased nearly 18,000 acres of shale land in 10 minutes.

And, not to beat a dead horse here, but the state really might want to consider that it is riddled with geological faults — not in the Central Valley, to be sure, but even there earthquakes occur. Especially if you start breaking apart rock and injecting fluids to make it slip around more. And what about already-leak-prone wastewater disposal wells lined with cement? The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that there is a 62 percent chance the Bay Area will see a 6.7-or-stronger quake by 2032. The odds that a major earthquake won’t have ripples 100 miles away near Modesto are slim.

Just something to think about. Good luck with the rule-making process. Try and beef it up. And, if you can, try to get it done before 2032.

Source

California issues proposed rules for ‘fracking’, Los Angeles Times

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More: 

California releases draft rules for regulating fracking

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California releases draft rules for regulating fracking

Fracking may release less methane than thought

Fracking may release less methane than thought

How much methane leaks out of the ground during the fracking process? There’s a long-running debate over that question, and the answer could determine the role of natural gas in a climate-changed world. Natural gas burns more cleanly than coal and oil, but that benefit could be outweighed if fracking causes significant releases of methane, a greenhouse gas that is orders of magnitude more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Last year, researchers from Cornell reported that fracked natural-gas wells leak 40 to 60 percent more methane than conventional natural-gas wells – making fracking a more dangerous source of greenhouse gas emissions than coal.

Citizen Action NY

But today, a team from MIT suggested the Cornell report may be incorrect — that fracking doesn’t result in much more methane emission than standard natural-gas drilling.

From E&E News:

[A]bout 216 gigagrams of methane [emitted] in 2010 … was due to hydraulic fracturing, a technique in which drillers inject pressurized water, sand and chemicals to fracture shale rock and release trapped gas. Fracking accounted for 3.6 percent of the 6,002 gigagrams of methane emitted overall by natural gas operations in 2010.

The implication is that shale gas drilling operations leak most of their methane from much of the same points as conventional gas drilling operations: pipelines, compressor stations, valves and other point sources. These account for about 96.4 percent of the emissions from a gas production site, the study finds.

There are a few caveats. The first is that the methodology for the calculations is based on different assumptions than those used by the EPA.

Depending on who is asked, companies either almost completely capture or flare their methane during completions, or almost completely vent the gas to the atmosphere. U.S. EPA assumes that half the gas is flared and half is vented.

In the MIT study, the authors assume that 70 percent is captured, 15 percent is flared and 15 percent is vented. They term this “current field practice” and say it is based on “extensive discussions with industry, EPA and other relevant groups regarding actual field practice.”

If those assumptions are off, it means that the study’s calculations on methane release are also incorrect. But we’ll defer to MIT.

Another caveat: It’s difficult to tell from this study how much more methane is released from fracked wells than traditional wells. The Energy Information Administration doesn’t have data for 2010, oddly, so it’s hard to compare. (The MIT study itself [PDF] doesn’t seem to have that data either.)

And the third (and most important) caveat: MIT’s research suggests that 3.1 percent of the nation’s entire 2010 greenhouse gas output in 2010 came from leaks in the natural gas production and distribution chain. Reducing that massive waste — some 10,259 gigagrams — could do much more to reduce warming than banning fracking. (We could start in Boston.)

It seems safe to assume that this research is not the final word on emissions related to fracking. But it can actually be considered good news: The negative effects of a controversial process may be lower than thought.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally posted here:

Fracking may release less methane than thought

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fracking may release less methane than thought