Secura 4-Quart Electric Water Boiler and Warmer AirPot SWB-43G, 18/10 Stainless Steel Interior
[amzn_product_post]
[amzn_product_post]
On her first full workday at her new job, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell got a loud message from green groups: Stop selling publicly owned coal for a pittance and destroying our atmosphere.
Environmental groups are calling for a moratorium on coal leasing in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming until the federal government reviews the program.
Representatives of 21 groups including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club requested the moratorium Monday in a letter to newly confirmed Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. …
As companies seek to ramp up coal exports, the environmentalists say the government needs to make sure companies are paying proper royalties. They also want more attention given to the climate change impacts of greenhouse gasses emitted when coal is burned.
On the royalty issue, the enviros put it a little more sharply in their letter:
The Department of Interior must ensure that coal companies do not cheat U.S. taxpayers …
A 2012 report from the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis revealed that BLM’s inaccurate assessment of the “fair market value” of coal has cheated taxpayers out of almost $30 billion over the last thirty years, a massive subsidy to the coal industry.
David Roberts put it more sharply still in a post last year: “taxpayers are getting screwed.”
it’s time climate hawks clued in to the fact that the feds — that is to say, we, collectively — own a sh*tload of land and resources, much of which can be used for energy. Among other things, this land we own provides 43.2 percent of the nation’s coal. Not only do we offer this coal up, but we practically beg coal companies to mine it, offering them, [as the Center for America Progress puts it,] “billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies via preferential tax treatments such as the ability to expense exploration and development costs, tax deductions to cover the costs of investments in mines, and favorable capital gains treatment on royalties.”
This week’s letter to Jewell means that a lot of climate hawks are cluing in. Policy analysts Matthew Stepp and Alex Trembath argue that it’s none too soon:
Targeting coal is … an appropriately ambitious strategy against climate change. While Keystone is a single project, U.S. coal is an entire energy system. A fight against it can draw support not only from Bill McKibben’s anti-Keystone troops but also from local clean-air organizers, conservationists who are against strip mining and mountaintop removal, and the many clean-energy industries that stand to gain from coal’s loss.
Indeed, McKibben’s 350.org is one of the groups that signed on to the letter. Activists from 350, the Sierra Club, and other groups know they have to do battle on multiple fronts. It’s not Keystone or coal. It’s Keystone and coal and fracking and offshore drilling and Arctic exploration …
—
Editor’s note: Bill McKibben is a member of Grist’s board of directors.
Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on
and
.
Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology
,
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
This article –
Activists to Interior: Stop letting coal companies rape our land, atmosphere, and treasury
The sun setting on BP’s time in the doghouse?
A glimmer of good news for BP and its shareholders: After being forced to sit out a single auction of Gulf of Mexico drilling leases as punishment for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the company will be allowed to bid on new leases this week.
That’s not only good news for BP, which already has more Gulf drilling leases than any other company. It’s a victory for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and other lawmakers who said they were fed up with persecution of BP by the Obama administration.
There is, however, a major catch. The company’s suspension from bidding on new leases has been lifted, but it remains suspended from actually leasing any of the new drilling areas. From Fuel Fix:
[The Interior Department] said in a notice Thursday that if the British oil giant is the highest bidder and remains under suspension at the time of the lease award, which is given following a 90-day post-sale evaluation period, it will be disqualified.
“Concurrently, the previous second highest bidder will assume the position of the highest responsible qualified bidder,” the notice says.
For now, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will accept and process BP bids following standard procedures.
How forward thinking of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who
, posts articles to
, and
. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:
.
Read more:
,
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
View the original here:
BP can bid on new Gulf drilling leases, but will it be allowed to drill?
If the environment could be likened to a punching bag, beaten up by pollution, climate change deniers, and rampant deforestation, then a colossal political impasse that the U.S. is facing this week could be likened to a redwood log connected to a battering ram being swung at Mother Earth’s punched-up face.
Sequestration would help polluters escape probing government eyes. It would slow down renewable energy and energy conservation projects. And it would keep Americans out of national parks.
Before taking you on a whirlwind trip around the internets to see how sequestration would affect the environment, I’ll take a moment to explain the word.
Sequestration refers to a clause in 2011 budget legislation that triggers automatic federal spending cuts unless lawmakers agree on a spending plan by a certain date, which Congress pushed back earlier this year to March 1. The cuts would equal $1.2 trillion over the coming decade, including $85 billion over the next year. There’s no rhyme nor reason to the cuts: They will simply amount to arbitrary, across-the-board reductions in every department’s budget. That means the federal government would spend less money advancing and permitting clean technology projects. It would spend less money maintaining national parks. And it would spend less money incarcerating harmless immigrants.
Got it? Good. Now here is that promised sampling of sequestration reporting from around the internets.
A series of automatic spending cuts scheduled to begin taking effect March 1 would result in an estimated $154 million reduction in federal funding for state environmental programs, according to the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
From Stateline, the news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts:
Air and water could get murkier, environmental officials warn, if forced budget cuts deal a heavy blow to state programs that carry out the bulk of inspections and pollution cleanups across the U.S.
From North American Wind Power, an industry publication:
The progress that offshore wind energy has made thus far in the U.S. could be stymied by cuts made under sequestration, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar said at the Offshore Wind Power USA conference, which is being held in Boston this week.
“We have made impressive gains — approving dozens of utility-scale solar, wind and geothermal projects in the West, and transitioning from planning to commercial leasing for offshore wind,” Salazar said during his keynote address. “The potentially devastating impact of budget reductions under sequestration could slow our economy and hurt energy sector workers and businesses.”
Sequestration would cut springtime snow plowing in Yellowstone, delaying its opening.
Few corners of the federal government directly touch the public as do the 398 [national] parks, monuments and historic sites, which draw 280 million visits a year. The system would feel the effects immediately of a $110 million slash should budget cuts take effect March 1 — from a three-week delay of Yellowstone’s spring opening to save money on snow plowing, to shuttered campgrounds and visitor centers along the Blue Ridge Parkway.
And 20 days before the cherry blossoms begin blooming on the Mall, $1.6 million would be slashed from the park’s $32 million budget, cutting into law enforcement, tree maintenance, rangers and other services that park employees provide for one of Washington’s biggest tourist attractions.
Christian Science Monitor points out that hundreds fewer onshore oil and gas leases would be issued in Western states under sequestration, before segueing to the bad news:
Sequestration would slow the transition to a clean-energy economy, according to the Department of Energy, and weaken efforts to obtain energy independence. Spending cuts would slow down the Energy Department’s efforts to make solar cost-competitive with conventional forms of electricity, the department says. A solar industry job training program targeted at military veterans is also slated to see reduced funding, if the sequester goes through.
Spending cuts could reduce by more than a thousand the number of homes weatherized through DOE funding and could leave 1,200 weatherization professionals out of the job.
A cut to the department’s Vehicle Technologies Program would delay research and development investments or shut down a Manufacturing Demonstration Facility for 6-8 months. That translates to a slowdown in the nation’s production of cleaner and more efficient vehicles, the DOE says.
In other words, unless the people who were elected to govern this country decide to govern this country, and unless they do it fast, polluters win, you lose, and Mother Earth cops yet another blow.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
More here:
Sequestration would be bad news for clean energy and a clean environment
Bruce Babbitt looks like this.
Since all anyone is talking about today is the secretary of the interior, let’s check in on Bruce Babbitt, who served in that position under President Clinton. What does he think about the state of the world, etc.? Any thoughts on the use of public land for oil exploration versus conserving it for the future, and perhaps any suggestions on how those uses should be balanced, ratio-wise?
From online internet website Politico.com:
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt pressed President Barack Obama on Tuesday to set aside an acre of public land for conservation for every acre that is leased for oil and gas development. …
Over the past four years, he said, industry has leased more than 6 million acres compared with the 2.6 million acres that have been permanently protected. “In the Obama era, land conservation is again falling behind,” he said. “This lopsided public-land administration in favor of the oil and gas industry shouldn’t continue.”
Alright. Sounds like a plan. A brand new plan, for Obama to look at.
Babbitt made a similar plea to Obama when he spoke at the press club in June 2011 on the 105th anniversary of the [Antiquities Act]. During that speech, he mocked “munchkins” at the White House for backing down from what he dubbed an assault from Republicans over the issue.
Oh. Not new. But at least he dropped the weird Wizard of Oz analogy this time.
Still, the issue does have its wicked witches.
Babbitt centered his verbal venom on an oil and gas industry that “will be insulted by the suggestion that the public’s use of public land should be on equal ground with their profits” and “right-wing Republicans in the House [who] will take up Big Oil’s cause and will again call for a fire sale of public lands for corporate use.”
Republicans have been doing this for decades, he said, and Obama should not try to strike deals with them.
Politico then quoted a Republican member of Congress responding exactly as you would expect.
And now you’re up to speed on Mr. Bruce Babbitt, munchkin-hater. We’ll update you again in 2019.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Read More:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) today unveiled a new energy plan, a document that she’d been hyping for weeks. In January, she called it “very comprehensive,” which is, I guess, an improvement over other people’s moderately comprehensive proposals.
Murkowski is the one who doesn’t appear to be only a head floating in space.
Murkowski very savvily linked the release to the Super Bowl power outage, noting that the darkened Superdome “helps to perhaps kick-start the debate” over exactly how much offshore drilling we should do. Oh, that was a spoiler: Murkowski thinks we should do a lot of offshore drilling. And if we had, the Superdome wouldn’t have gone dark last night, because the game could have been played by the light of burning barrels of crude.
So. The plan. Here’s how the Anchorage Daily News describes it. (We’ve gone ahead and removed the filler.)
Murkowski wants oil leasing off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. She wants an increase in drilling on federal lands, saying that will hasten independence from imported oil.
Her proposals include drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and overturning the Interior Department’s plan to set aside half the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska for wildlife, wilderness and recreation. Murkowski also wants to speed approval for resource production on Alaska Native lands.
Murkowski is resistant to federal regulation of fracking, the controversial process in which high-pressure water and chemicals are injected underground to free up the natural gas inside shale rock. Murkowski said the states already do a good job of regulating it. [Ed. – Ha ha ha ha ha]
She is pushing for immediate approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is opposed by environmental groups because it would tap Canadian oil sands that are higher in carbon emissions than other sources of oil.
What about climate change, you ask? Well: “Her proposal opposes ‘any policy that would increase the price of energy or limit consumer choice.’” She disavows her 2007 push for a cap on carbon emissions, arguing that the economy is worse now. Besides, cheap energy should be embraced! And then she said, presumably not ironically, that access to cheap energy means America is great.
“We like to be comfortable in our temperatures. We like to be able to move around. This is the mark of a successful and an economically healthy world. Where you have energy these are the prosperous areas,” she said.
Well, Sen. Murkowski, you’re going to love Alaska in 2100 when it’s 15 degrees warmer. All that cheap energy, making Alaska comfortable in its temperatures (if at the expense of the rest of America and the world).
There is literally nothing in Murkowski’s proposal which in any way “kick-starts” any debate. It’s only “very comprehensive” in the sense that it comprehensively includes all of the same policies as the GOP’s awesomely named “DEJA” proposal last year, which itself was such a retread that we basically only bothered to make fun of the name when reporting on it.
Murkowski loves oil, loves oil companies, and can thank the industry, in part, for her remarkable 2010 write-in Senate victory. This isn’t an energy plan; it’s a fundraising email for 2016 sent to Shell and ExxonMobil.
But nice Super Bowl hook. Maybe that got a few more eyeballs on this same, tired nonsense.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
See the original article here –
Alaska senator offers a fresh, new energy policy calling for more drilling in Alaska
Center for American Progress Action Fund
In a letter posted at the Department of Energy website, Secretary Steven Chu announces plans to resign his post.
I’ve always been inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, who articulated his Dream of an America where people are judged not by skin color but “by the content of their character.” In the scientific world, people are judged by the content of their ideas. Advances are made with new insights, but the final arbitrator of any point of view are experiments that seek the unbiased truth, not information cherry picked to support a particular point of view. The power of our work is derived from this foundation. …
I came with dreams, and am leaving with a set of accomplishments that we should all be proud of. Those accomplishments are because of all your dedication and hard work. …
While I will always remain dedicated to the missions of the Department, I informed the President of my decision a few days after the election that Jean and I were eager to return to California. I would like to return to an academic life of teaching and research, but will still work to advance the missions that we have been working on together for the last four years.
In the short term, I plan to stay on as Secretary past the ARPA-E Summit at the end of February. I may stay beyond that time so that I can leave the Department in the hands of the new Secretary.
We’d previously mentioned that a Chu resignation was likely — but we didn’t mention how hard he’ll be hard to replace. This is a Nobel Prize winner who lamented that he couldn’t ride his bike to work once he ascended to the Cabinet. The resignation also means that all three major agencies that deal with energy and environmental issues — Energy, the EPA, Interior — will need a new head.
The Hill has more about Chu and potential replacements:
The 64-year-old, with White House support, backed a larger federal role in R&D and commercialization of renewable, energy efficiency and battery technologies.
But part of the effort — grants and loans to help specific green energy companies take flight — brought big political headaches for Chu and President Obama when a handful of them failed or struggled. …
The long list of potential nominees to replace Chu includes former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.); former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D); Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman; and Sue Tierney, a managing principal at the Analysis Group who was DOE’s assistant secretary for policy under President Clinton. …
Chu also focused on two programs that were authorized before his arrival but really got rolling under the current administration.
One was the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which funds so-called high-risk, high-reward research into breakthrough technologies. The agency was created in 2007 legislation but did not receive funding until 2009.
The other was the green technology loan guarantee program, which had not finalized support for any companies before Chu’s arrival.
More to come from us soon.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
View original post here:
EPA headquarters.
When Fort Worth resident Steve Lipsky discovered that his tap water was bubbling, the EPA sprang into action. Lipsky lived near natural gas wells being drilled by Range Resources, the likely source of the methane flowing into his water supply. From the Associated Press:
The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December 2010, because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of bubbling water.
Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys, were in danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered Range Resources to take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected homeowners with safe water.
The agency issued a 2010 emergency order in an effort to address the problem. And then, without the problem being fixed, it pulled that order. Why?
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked an independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples taken from 32 water wells. In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing that the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range Resources’ nearby drilling operation.
Meanwhile, the EPA was seeking industry leaders to participate in a national study into hydraulic fracturing. Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the agency continued to pursue a “scientifically baseless” action against the company in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not allow government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company attorney David Poole.
In March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order, halted the court battle and set aside Thyne’s report showing that the gas in Lipsky’s water was nearly identical to the gases the Plano, Texas-based company was producing.
The EPA’s efforts to study and possibly regulate fracking have been fraught from the outset. The massive production boom that’s reshaping entire states is lucrative for fossil fuel companies and a boon for politicians. That the U.S. is seeing recent highs in extraction — and recent lows in oil imports — is largely a function of increased hydraulic fracturing. There’s a huge disincentive for those in power to derail that train.
There’s even dissension within the government. The EPA and the Department of the Interior disagree on possible water pollution from fracking in Wyoming. Interior is developing its own fracking rules that will apply on federal land, due out later this year.
In this case, the EPA’s move is disconcerting and, on its surface, inappropriate. It’s another example of how an agency designed to be highly independent of political forces increasingly finds itself held hostage to them. Over the long term, everyone who might be affected by incomplete research into fracking suffers. Over the short term, people like Steve Lipsky do.
Lipsky, who is still tied up in a legal battle with Range Resources, now pays about $1,000 a month to haul water to his home. He, his wife and three children become unnerved when their methane detectors go off. Sometime soon, he said, the family will have to decide whether to stay in the large stone house or move.
“This has been total hell,” Lipsky said. “It’s been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life.”
Range Resources’ David Poole disagrees.
“[EPA] said that they would look into it, which I believe is exactly what they did,” Poole said. “I’m proud of them. As an American, I think that’s exactly what they should have done.”
EPA changed course after oil company protested, Associated Press
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Excerpt from:
We’ve known for a while that temperatures on the western Antarctic Peninsula are warming rapidly, resulting in huge ice loss. That peninsula, south of South America, was believed to be an outlier; Eastern Antarctica has actually seen its ice mass increase.
But, as is so often the case with our climate predictions, the outlier is just the leading edge of the problem. New research suggests that temperatures in Western Antarctica overall have spiked since the late 1950s.
From the Times:
[T]he temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth.
“The surprises keep coming,” said Andrew J. Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who took part in the study. “When you see this type of warming, I think it’s alarming.”
This is a significant rise — though relative to how cold Antarctica is overall, it doesn’t mean that you should start booking a cruise for the continent’s sunny beaches. Not yet, anyway. Mostly because once the western portion of Antarctica melts, sea levels will rise at least 10 feet, meaning the beaches won’t be where you’d expect.
Why do scientists think this happened? Surprisingly, not because a giant space dragon flies above the South Pole exhaling fire.
Much of the warming discovered in the new paper happened in the 1980s, around the same time the planet was beginning to warm briskly. More recently, Dr. Bromwich said, the weather in West Antarctica seems to have become somewhat erratic. In the summer of 2005, the interior of West Antarctica warmed enough for the ice to undergo several days of surface melting.
Dr. Bromwich is worried that this could eventually become routine, perhaps accelerating the decay of the West Antarctic ice sheet, but the warming is not fast enough for that to happen right away. “We’re talking decades into the future, I think,” Dr. Bromwich said.
And if a scientist says it will be decades, we can apparently expect this to happen by 2020.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Visit site:
Western Antarctica is warming three times faster than the rest of the world
It’s a salty Christmas miracle for Drakes Bay Oyster Company — albeit a temporary one.
The bivalve purveyor in Point Reyes, just north of San Francisco, was set to be dissolved at the end of the year: equipment dismantled, employees laid off, land vacated. This was the plan all along for the feds, who had issued a 40-year lease to the company with the intent of its expiration on Jan. 1, 2013, at which time the land would be returned to federal wilderness and cute scampering seals on the Point Reyes National Seashore.
After the Interior Department refused to extend the company’s lease for another 10 years, Drakes vowed to fight the decision and filed suit. Now it’s reached at least a temporary agreement with Interior. From the Marin Independent Journal:
Under the agreement, the oyster company which has long been a fixture in Point Reyes National Seashore may continue activities involving planting and growing new oysters in the water at Drakes Estero, avoiding layoffs of one-third of its 30 employees right before the holidays …
Under the agreement, the oyster company has withdrawn its request for a temporary restraining order and instead will file a motion for a preliminary injunction challenging [Interior Secretary Kenneth] Salazar’s decision.
A hearing is set for Jan. 25 on the injunction.
Everyone loves them some seals, even in molting season (this is saying a lot, seals), and many environmentalists — the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, other usual suspects — support closing the farm, citing the importance of pure wilderness. But many other environmentalists support letting it stay, and their voices have grown stronger over the past couple of weeks. Writes Earth Island Journal editor Jason Marks:
Wilderness is all too rare (and becoming rarer) and we need more places that aren’t stamped with humanity’s insignia.
But Drake’s Estero is not that place. Having followed this controversy for years — and having spent several spells living in Point Reyes Station, the hamlet at the edge of the park — I strongly believe the oyster farm should stay.
It seems to me the debate over the ecological impact of Drakes Bay Oyster Company is all backwards. The issue isn’t whether shellfish farming is compatible with the ideal of wilderness. Rather, it’s whether a wilderness is compatible with the pastoral landscape that surrounds Drake’s Estero …
A National Academies of Science report from 2009 said the data on oyster farm-related harbor seal disturbance was so thin that it “cannot be used to infer cause and effect,” and called for “a more detailed assessment.” A professor from UC-Davis who reviewed the Park Service’s draft environmental impact study on the oyster farm removal observed that “impacts of oyster aquaculture on birds are speculative and unsupported by peer-reviewed publications.”
Some locals say the feds even took their comments out of context, misrepresenting them as being against the farm when they support it. One kayak touring company said paddling in the estero has only gotten more pleasant in recent years, under Drakes’ new ownership. “Not only have they cleaned and improved the physical location but they offer an educational and historical component that enhances our client’s experience of the area.” The kayakers also said they rely on the farmers for potential emergency rescue.
In the meanwhile, Drakes is still farming and harvesting per usual, and open for business. And if you’re feeling crafty, you can hit up its massive piles of castoff oyster shells and DIY one of these very eco-friendly holiday trees.
Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for
.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
View post: