Archive for the ‘Fossil Fuel’ Category

Texas, the Biggest U.S. Polluter, Challenges EPA/Clean Air Act

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Texas produces 35% of our entire nation’s toxic emissions and doesn’t want to change. So Texas has just challenged the EPA relative to regulating greenhouse gas emissions. From what I’ve read it’s state’s rights versus federal according to Texas governor Rick Perry. He claims Texas is doing a fine job of monitoring emissions and getting them under control, and for the EPA to suddenly come down on Texas will cost the state jobs and the involved industries millions that will be passed down to the consumer. He and others also “site ’scientifically flawed studies’ as their basis for challenging the agency’s decision.” Sorry climate change aside, CO2, SO2, and other greenhouse gases have been found to be detrimental to respiratory health by our own government agency. This challenge is nothing but a stall.

The Dallas Morning News website reported that the other challengers are “the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank and conservative advocacy outfit; the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an organized group of climate-change skeptics; and the Science and Environmental Policy Act, which has challenged the United Nations over findings that buttressed previous climate-change treaties. Greenwire says in its story yesterday that Freedomworks, the advocacy group headed by former Rep. Dick Armey of Denton County, is also involved in the challenge.”

http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/tceq/.

Let’s look at the assertions the governor made. Is Texas doing a fine job of taking care of its pollution? Well not so much. According to an article on Center for Public Integrity’s website, Texas has been caught doing a lot of dirty stuff to their citizens for years.

In October, 2003, in the space of three hours, while the 94,000-plus inhabitants of Tyler slept nearby, Martin Lake [Steam Electric Station] pumped more than 150,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide into the East Texas air. The pollution was more than eight times the plant’s hourly emissions limits under federal regulations. Sulfur dioxide air pollution, as environmentalists, regulators, and TXU officials have known for many years, helps trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory diseases.

After the October 2003 event, TXU reported the emissions overage to TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). But a comparison between EPA and TCEQ records shows that the company gave a far lower emissions figure to state officials than the smokestack monitor registered.

Hmmm. They lied. The same article continued:

[]A three-month review of federal and state records by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit journalism organization, suggests [the above wasn't a one time incident]. The review, encompassing 25 million data entries spanning 10 years, shows that between 1997 and 2006, TXU’s coal-fired plants exceeded federal sulfur dioxide emission limits nearly 650 times, spewing more than 1.3 million pounds of excess sulfur dioxide into the Texas air.

Read what the USGS, a government agency, has to say about excesses of SO2, CO2, and hydrogen fluoride relative to volcanic eruptions and regardless of climate change:

The volcanic gases that pose the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a volcano. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that irritates skin and the tissues and mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and throat. Sulfur dioxide chiefly affects upper respiratory tract and bronchi. The World Health Organization recommends a concentration of no greater than 0.5 ppm over 24 hours for maximum exposure. A concentration of 6-12 ppm can cause immediate irritation of the nose and throat; 20 ppm can cause eye irritation; 10,000 ppm will irritate moist skin within minutes.

.

TXU went over 8 times the hourly emissions limit for the Martin Lake plant

The Center for Public Integrity website also stated: “Childhood asthma affected about 3 percent of the population in the 1960s, but that figure has climbed above 9 percent, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control. In Fort Worth, a 2003 city health department survey found that asthma rates here were more than double the statewide average, and even higher for children.”

Governor Rick is wrong. Texas is not doing a good job of self regulation. Self regulation is nothing better than the fox guarding the henhouse because industry has no ethics anymore. For instance: “TXU was by no means the only polluter given a free pass by TCEQ. The records gathered by the Center show that, again and again in Texas, air quality enforcement came at the point of a citizen lawsuit, not from the agency.” Texas needs regulations from a higher place because I don’t think things are about to change in the near future in Texas:

As the largest energy provider in Texas, TXU has established an exceptional degree of influence in the Texas statehouse, through a network of high-profile lobbyists and political connections.

In spring 2007 when legislation to increase public oversight over the TXU buyout process was pending in the Senate, TXU and its buyers unleashed a powerhouse lobbying team including former state legislators Curtis Seidlits, Jr., Rudy Garza, Eddie Cavazos, Paul Sadler, and Stan Schlueter, and former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk.

According to Texans for Public Justice, TXU and two investor groups spent approximately $17 million during the 2007 Texas legislative session on lobbyists, advertising, food and beverages, entertainment and gifts – including sending 2,400 tacos to legislators and their aides on the first day of the session.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/projects/entry/363/.

There you have it, polluters spending millions to keep polluting, and whining at the same time that it will cost them millions to curb it. Again, what is known as “scrubbers” for coalburners were around in the 60’s. These scrubbers don’t do a thing for CO2 but do reduce SO2 emissions. And there was a Clean Coal Technology Program launched by the DOE in 1986.

It was a cost-shared effort by government and industry to demonstrate innovative coal-burning processes at a series of full-scale facilities around the country and was expected to finance more than $5 billion in projects before it was completed later in the decade. Under the program, the federal government provided up to 50 percent of the total cost of the demonstration projects. In the first two rounds of solicitation for proposals, the DOE selected 29 projects for funding. In the second round, held in the summer of 1988, seven of the 16 successful proposals involved the use of both wet and dry scrubber systems.

Where was TXU? It obviously didn’t take advantage of that program. I think I read somewhere that now it costs around 650 million dollars on average to put scrubbers on coalburners. It’s industry’s problem for not moving faster on behalf of the health and safety of citizens. Does a little over a half billion dollars constitute hardship for big industry that nets billions per quarter?

http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research-development/120873-1.html.

Analysts like Al Armendariz, a chemical engineering professor at Southern Methodist University who is an expert on air pollution and an environmental advocate, said smaller and older facilities could face hefty costs, but major companies won’t feel a thing.

“They’ll say, ‘Look, if we have to spend half a million dollars to re-permit, big deal.’ They probably spend more than that on toiletries for those facilities,” he said, noting that even multimillion-dollar expenses would be a “one-time capital blip” for major companies. Armendariz also said he doubts industry claims that consumers could feel any pain.

http://www.allbusiness.com/professional-scientific/scientific-research-development/120873-1.html.

Al might doubt consumers will feel the pain, but it looks like in Texas and everywhere else the cards are already stacked against the average citizen’s health concerns. As for taxes, have you noticed all the petro commercials airing lately using the fear card…”Prices for consumers will go up. Consumers will be taxed more if the big bad government cracks down on industry pollution and tries to further alternatives.” Industry is already on the move to make Al eat his words.

Taxes and our health and well being should not be pitted against each other like a threat. We’ve been plied with fear for a decade. Consumers should not bear the expense to finance the changes polluting industries will have to make in the future to “clean up” because they failed to make them long ago when it would have been far less expensive. Likewise the consumer should not bear the guilt of any of the health problems that could have been avoided especially in children. Gotta laugh at that one since TXU, the governor of Texas, and anyone else who challenged the EPA obviously feels no remorse for anyone suffering respiratory illnesses at their hands. After all they provided jobs where workers could breathe a toxic brew everyday.

First the Senate and Now the House Attempts to Block the EPA

Friday, February 5th, 2010

First Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) Alaska and a group of Republican Senators and 3 Democrats filed a disapproval resolution to stop the EPA from regulating emissions. She patronized the EPA’s power to do that calling it “back door climate regulations.” The really unnerving thing about her disapproval resolution is that coal lobbyists wrote it. Her belittlement of the EPA’s power flies in the face of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling, and the Clean Air Act, which is law, passed by congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court not some “back door climate regulations.”

Now we have congress people Ike Skelton and JoAnn Emerson (MO), and Colin Petersen (MN), filing a bill in the House to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. It seems Ike has decided all by saying “Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at EPA. America’s energy and environmental policies should be set by Congress.” And further on stated: “This legislation is a guarantee that the EPA will not use its rapidly-expanding powers to enact policies which members of Congress know will create untold hardships in the rest of the country, especially in Missouri.”
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/mo04_skelton/StopEPA.html.

Does Ike know congress approved the Clean Air Act long ago? His alluding to the EPA’s rapid expansion is a real fallacy. The EPA was full of industry people during the Bush Administration and ineffective. Purging the EPA of lobbyists and restoring its power that was upheld by the court in 2007 is not a rapid expansion but a return to normalcy. Funny he wants to overlook that as intolerable all of a sudden.

What he as the people’s representative should find intolerable are representatives both in the house and senate that continually dismiss the law of the land, especially longstanding laws meant to protect the public and allow industry to dictate what should or shouldn’t be followed. Oh, Murkowski flat out admitted to the coal industry’s involvement with her disapproval resolution, but Ike, JoAnn and Colin weren’t without big industry backing either. As house.gov states: “Reps. Skelton and Emerson were joined by representatives of Missouri’s Rural Electric Cooperatives, Missouri’s Municipal Utilities, the Missouri Corn Growers, and the Missouri Soybean Association, among others.”

2009 Second Warmest Year of Warmest Decade on Record

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

An article on Environmental News Service website reported: “January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade.” James Hansen of NASA went on to say: “There’s a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends.” Do ya think?

It’s a good article that addresses a cool 2008 due to the tropical Pacific cooling, and that the Arctic and Antarctic in particular warmed more than the rest of the earth. It also explained that our lower 48 states only comprise 1.5 of the total earth’s surface so our overall temperature doesn’t factor in greatly. Guess that leaves out the notion we can simply rely on the backyard thermometer hanging on the fence as a predictor of climate change, or the ever popular check for wind direction by licking a finger and sticking it up in the air. Check out the graph and you’ll see what I mean. While the variance zig zags up and down accounting for our sometimes hot, sometimes cool summers, the AVERAGE OVERALL global temperature continues to rise.

The article even addressed other issues that account for climate change such as “changes in the sun’s irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperatures in the tropics, and changes in aerosol levels.” Also factored in was the presence or lack of El Nino or La Nina’s. I’m sure this report addresses far more than that of the first in the 1880’s.

The best part was the following explanation for the lovely Arctic blasts we’ve been getting. I wondered about them and if we’ll be getting more?

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

So we can look for more of the frigid cold? No happy camper here because there are far too many charges on my heating bill, different pricing per CCF, and the “oh so cheap” natural gas is not.

>http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2010/2010-01-25-03.html.

The Campaign to Stall Global Warming Policy

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

I’ve been saying for a while to look for the money motivation behind skeptic’s opinions regarding global warming and a current article in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell, titled: “: “As the World Burns,” documents an outright campaign to distort, create a chasm, and stall progress for a greener economy and jobs, jobs, jobs in America. Who would do that? No one stands to gain on the path we appear to be taking more than big oil and coal. We should have done a real heads up and kept them up when Exxon Mobil earned 40.1 billion dollars NET in ONE quarter while we paid high dollar at the pumps. They’re using it to stall everything. The world should wait while they get one last good year in. Then it will be another good year, and another…All the wealth in the country belongs to 1% of the citizenry. That should tell us something.

The cover of the same magazine was quite blunt in trying to tell readers something about the forces preventing progress in the U.S. It was titled in big red letters: “You Idiots! Meet the Planet’s Worst Enemies.” It’s simply white hat, black hat here. Say for instance, I’m a billion dollar corp., and I see that the worldwide competition and sentiment is moving toward cleaning up our acts relative to global warming. I remember Cheney’s 1% doctrine too. It was good enough to reason a war in Iraq. In the context of global warming the 1% doctrine dictates that if there is a 1% chance that we are exacerbating global warming, then we have the duty to combat the source. I see brand new innovation for fuels that looks promising like algae, methane, recycled grease, etc., and I’m reminded that America has always been a leader in innovation. We nurture that type of progress here. As this corporation I have great wealth, clout, and access to the technical ability to choose to:

A. Invest in new innovation while I’m still at the top of the game in the fossil fuel sector. By doing this I insure that I will always be a corporation associated with progress and prosperity well into the future, where I will probably advance and adapt over and over in step with newer technologies as they come up. I am still employing workers in the fossil fuel industry but am setting up programs for job transition in the future. Eventually, I phase out the polluting industry, and become totally vested in the new, and maintain my fortune while continuously providing jobs for old and new employees.

B. Use my money and clout to block progress not only to a cleaner way of life for the world, but also block the chance for all those young, eager, innovative minds to create. I would also block new jobs in a brand new green economy. Heaven forbid anyone finds out these jobs do indeed help boost the economy, and prices for alternatives begin to fall. I would continue to offer only those jobs in polluting industries that ravage the land, air, and water in my own country and eventually the world, as well as, expose workers to an unhealthy working environment. I might also affect the health of those that live in close proximity to my operations. In the end, the world moves forward and I am so far behind. But who cares, I’m still rich.

There you have it, black and white. We see what road corporations are choosing to take The very next article after “As the World Burns” is even better. It’s titled: “The Climate Killers,” and names the top 17 polluters/deniers “derailing efforts to curb global warming,” by Tim Dickinson.

After reading this, the question people should be asking themselves is, “What would have happened if the technology boom was continually stalled? What if there was a massive campaign by old school America to keep us on corded phones forever? All the Silicon Valley innovation, jobs, and even the stock market associated with it would never have been realized. We could use another immediate surge like that in the U.S., and it’s got green written all over it.

Take the time to read the articles. They are important, as the U.S. seems to become ever more increasingly ruled by corporate America

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers.

Murkowski Amendment to Thwart EPA Was Written by Coal Lobbyists; Come On!

Monday, January 25th, 2010

While all eyes were on Haiti last week, Senator Murkowski (R) Alaska, 35 Republicans, and 3 Democrats from fossil fuel states introduced a disapproval resolution to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski likes to patronize the EPA’s power to do so calling it “back door climate regulations.” http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/murkowski-seeks-thwart-epa-emission-regulations-again.
.
What??? Stop right there. Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007 was an epic decision by a conservative Supreme Court to get the ball rolling to curb CO2 emissions. All was passed by congress. The public was well aware of it. A Washington Post article from 2007 is a reminder that the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush EPA for NOT regulating emissions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html . So how is standing legislation reduced to “back door” politics in just 3 years?

The “back door” tactics should be assigned to Murkowski. She openly stated her concerns for her state being ravaged by climate change in a speech in 2006, but by the end of 2009, Murkowski’s standards changed dramatically. An article titled: “Lisa Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns” puts it nicely. http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/21/lisa-murkowski-fiddle-while-alaksa-burns-epa-regulation/.

Ignoring Alaskan fires are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Last week ended with 12-20 ft. waves around Ventura, CA, while mudslides wiped out homes in an area still expecting 3″ of rain along with coastal funnels, 14 tornadoes ripped through Texas in the dead of winter, ice storms ran throughout the Midwest snapping power lines, and the south was expecting heavy storms with possible tornadoes. And I blogged that the earthquake that crushed Haiti was a big one, part of a series of activity that went up and down our California coastline. Yeah it’s a real good time to waylay the EPA from acting to regulate emissions that may be exacerbating our climate problems.

Murkowski fails to connect the dots. But why? My guess is that the coal industry can buy more time for permits and be exempt from future regulations once permitted because another Republican senator changed the language in the Senate Climate Change Bill that would allow these exemptions. Covering the coal industry is key here although Murkowski likes to upset the little guy arguing that EPA regulations will hurt small industry, farms, and such in bad economic times. Gaining momentum depends on getting the little guy on her side. The big guys are already there.

More than just there, two lobbyists for the coal industry wrote Murkowski’s amendment. Murkowski admitted to it. http://www.greendaily.com/2010/01/18/murkowski-partnered-with-big-coal-and-oil-lobbyists-to-attack-th/ .

Lovely. The media hardly mentions Murkowski’s attempt to usurp the judicial branch’s directive, and consequently deny the power of the Clean Air Act, let alone let us know that the coal industry wrote this legislation. This comes on the heels of our Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations can openly support or oppose candidates running in our legislature.

Heck between writing legislation and buying the candidate, I’d say the wealthy (corporate America) have indeed taken over.

More:

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/01/20/tell-murkowski-to-give-back-the-money/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMudflats+%28The+Mudflats%29.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/23memo.html.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/01/21/blanche-lincoln-mary-landrieu-join-republican-effort-to-make-the-environment-worse/.

The Bush EPA http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/07/another-epa-administrator-bites-the-dust/.

The Term “Clean” is a Stretch for Michigan’s New Coalburner When it Comes to CO2

Friday, January 8th, 2010

The term “clean” is still a stretch if it’s used to describe coal relative to CO2. I have to laugh when I read articles about “clean” coal. Very seldom is the process of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) ever mentioned. That is the latest technology that actually catches CO2 before it’s emitted into the atmosphere. It’s a huge and extremely costly process that captures all the garbage spewing forth, extracts the CO2 away from the other stuff, liquefies it, and at some later point the liquefied CO2 is forced into the ground under great pressure. OMG! I read this process and the enormous price tag. I don’t think it’s worth it.
http:// http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/09/14/1.

So CCS is not a process being used at many coalburners these days. Instead utilities like to tout the use of what are termed “scrubbers” that remove pollutants. They do remove sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury but notice there is no mention of CO2? Scrubbers don’t remove that. But considering they do remove the other pollutants, scrubbers are good and a step in the right direction. They should have been in place on every coalburner that went up from the 80’s on because that technology has been around for quite awhile. But the cost for scrubbers runs in the hundreds of millions. Ahhh. Scrubbers are just now being widely installed to comply with the Clean Air Act, and we’re supposed to pat the utilities on the back for being so green, give em big thumbs up. Better late than never—I guess. And so it goes for Consumers Power in Michigan.

Consumer’s Power has just been granted an air permit for one of these self-described “clean” coalburners. It’s planned for the Bay City area and is also billed as a “clean” coal plant by the “Building Tradesman” paper. Of course it will have the latest scrubbers that remove the sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury, but not CO2. Remember, scrubbers have been around since the 70’s. The new plant will not be a CCS plant either. The reason it’s “clean” is because of the offsets Consumer’s promised. Consumers will shut down 5 of its oldest coalburners and possibly 2 more if they are not needed and replace them with this new 830 MW plant that will spew only 830 MW worth of CO2 instead of up to 958 MW of combined CO2 from the others. The term “up to” leaves some wiggle room. This will more than likely be an Even-Steven trade off but not until 2017 when the plant is supposed to be finished.

So in 2017 when we should really be winding down on pollution and gearing up with other alternatives we’ve really advanced on since 2010, Michigan will have a brand new CO2 spewing plant going on line, and the 1800 direct jobs, and 2,500 indirect jobs it maintained will be over. One hundred people will work there. Let’s hope world competition and pressure, the climate, and an economy headed in a greener direction doesn’t put a big, big damper on this future, fossil fuel burner.

Read the article: http://www.detroitbuildingtrades.org/paper.html#article1.

GM Produces First Lithium Ion Battery Pack in Michigan Plant

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

GM rolled its first lithium-ion battery pack off the line at its Brownstown facility today. Michigan is ahead of the game on this one. This is the first battery assembly plant of its kind in the country. If the Chevy Volt spurs the competition to create battery powered vehicles all around, Michigan may have planted the roots of a burgeoning green industry that could expand to plenty more jobs.

But even more importantly, it seems that anytime there is a new invention there is also a propensity to improve on the original at an accelerated rate. In other words, it takes forever to get a new product to market, but once it hits, other products like it seem to appear immediately, and both competition and supply drive the price down while improvements on the original to make it smaller, stronger, faster, and/or better happens far more quickly than getting the original to market.

I have complete faith that in the not too distant future we will have miniscule batteries powering larger cars to go farther and faster. I can see where a solar recharging unit is not out of the question if we can find more efficient conductors for solar–buy the car, buy the solar charger with it. If solar panels get smaller and stronger than it’s quite conceivable that they could exist anywhere to renew the car batteries. I stake small solar panels in the ground in the summer to run water fountains in my yard. And I know I’ve read conversations on blogs that suggested the dock for the power to the car should accept DC just for that purpose. There is wasted energy expended converting DC to AC to begin with. If the car accepted DC, the current from the solar panel would be immediate with more power for a quicker charge. Even if solar didn’t supply all the power needed it would surely help defray the cost of the electricity.

And what about the environmental costs of using electricity to replenish the batteries? As it stands now, it is a wasted effort environmentally because most electricity is generated from coal. Until utility companies capture coal burning emissions, battery powered cars may be short on fumes per se, but plugging them into an A/C outlet is still serving up a cocktail of bad juju into the air with a mercury chaser to boot.

We’d better consider solar rechargers at some point. The power produced would be free—of many things.

Read the whole article: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100107/AUTO01/1070450/First-Volt-battery-pack-rolls-off-line.

History of the Study of Global Warming

Friday, December 18th, 2009

I happened across a website by Spencer Weart who details the history of the study of CO2, the Greenhouse Effect, and global warming. It’s extensive compared to a much shorter book of his and this website summary has link after link for more sources.

After reading the entire essay, it’s clearly evident the idea of global warming is not a 21st century hoax perpetrated by Al Gore. The study of CO2 on the atmosphere has been going on, and on, and on. There is a heck of a lot of evidence at this time that we are in the full throws of global climate change due to excess CO2. Also in this study is evidence that the earth is not always in balance and capable of correcting itself.

Give it a read. You might learn something. I learned that scientists can tell the difference between naturally occurring CO2 and CO2 from burning fossil fuel. I found the long arduous process of identifying CO2 and other excess gasses relative to the greenhouse effect interesting, and very easy to comprehend that is not always the case with scientific explanations.

Read on:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

Natural Gas is Plentiful But Extraction Methods Threaten Clean Water

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

The New York Times just ran an article called “The Dark Side of a Natural Gas Boom,” about extraction practices that threaten wells, and groundwater. Not surprisingly, natural gas drilling expanded significantly over the last decade. Halliburton happens to be the second largest natural gas extractor in the country and with the help of the last administration had thousand of acres of land, some in our national parks, open to them for gas drilling. Natural gas is so plentiful now that it threatens the coal industry because it is also cheap, and a much cleaner fuel for electricity generation. An article at groundreport.com stated: “Last week, Progress Energy, an electricity generator in North Carolina, announced plans to close all of its old coal plants and switch to natural gas.” Interesting. http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Energy-Deflation-Cometh-CheaPiling-On-Shale-Gas-LN/2913527..

What I remember most about the natural gas boom is the few and far between stories about how fracturing allows methane, benzene, and a host of other poisons to leak out of the ground uncontrolled. I blogged about it this past year, http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/05/natural-gasmethane-found-in-more-and-more-drinking-water-across-the-country/. I also remember an article in Rolling Stone years ago that stated drilling for natural gas is not exact and underground springs and water sources are often hit. The clean water shoots out uncapped. After all it’s not the gas drillers job to capture clean water.

Considering the glaciers that normally supply rivers and underground aquifers in the U.S. are melting and the outcome may mean a water shortage down the line, the U.S. simply cannot afford to threaten any of our existing water supplies in a rushed and abrasive quest to tap natural gas. The process of extraction requires millions of gallons of water to begin with so contaminating water sources nearby just aggravate an already dire situation for clean water availability. There needs to be balance between acquiring natural gas and preserving clean water otherwise we end up with a resource for energy for our comfort while losing our most basic of needs to live—WATER.

Read about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08fracking.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=tap+water+&st=nyt.

http://www.propublica.org/feature/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113.

Acidic Oceans Less Capable of Absorbing Carbon

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

The more CO2 absorbed by the oceans, the more acidic they become, and the more acidic they become the less capable of taking up excess atmospheric carbon. A new study appearing in the November 19 issue of the journal Nature reveals this phenomenon.
Former models attributed the decline in absorption due to “the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere and global warming-induced shifts in winds and ocean circulation.

The article in Science Daily reported: “The researchers estimate that the oceans last year took up a record 2.3 billion tons of CO2 produced from burning of fossil fuels. But with overall emissions growing rapidly, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans since 2000 may have declined by as much as 10%.” This is the first time scientists have actually measured the change.

The study was pretty extensive. The article said it reconstructed the annual accumulation of industrial carbon from 1765 to 2008. As expected carbon uptake by the world’s oceans rose sharply trying to keep pace in the 50’s. By 2,000 carbon emissions reached “such a pitch that the ocean’s ability to absorb it declined even though the oceans absorb more each year in absolute tonnage. Today, the oceans hold about 150 billion tons of industrial carbon, the researchers estimate–a third more than in the mid-1990s.”

Of all the oceans, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica is most important. Carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater than in warmer waters. About 40 percent of carbon emissions enter the oceans through the Southern Ocean. As oceans warm up, and acidify, they become less capable of absorbing carbon dioxide.

Bottom line as stated by the study’s lead author, Samar Khatiwala: “Natural mechanisms cannot be depended upon to mitigate increasing human-produced emissions. “What our ocean study and other recent land studies suggest is that we cannot count on these sinks operating in the future as they have in the past, and keep on subsidizing our ever-growing appetite for fossil fuels.”

Amen, and add to that the world’s overtaxed and disappearing rainforests, and previously frozen Arctic carbon sinks.

Read the article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091118143211.htm.