Our World and Everything in It

The lawsuit is the latest attack on the EPA for not regulating emissions again. This time it’s emissions from oil refineries. The New York Times article stated that 15% of all CO2 emissions comes from oil refineries. The other states are

New York atty. Andrew Cuomo leads the current fight, claiming it’s another example of the Bush Administration’s “do-nothing policy” regarding global warming.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that it was the duty of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. The NY Times article said, “Since then, the agency’s director has said it is the job of Congress to regulate them.” Don’t you love it?

The EPA is like Teflon. Nothing sticks. They’ve been sued to set standards for power plant emissions and recently by California to regulate emissions from autos.

As far as the EPA turning out any standards for any of the above, so far nada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/26epa.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin

Did you know that a lake could blow up from CO2 gases settled on the bottom? Until 1986 scientists didn’t think so either. I was watching the History Channel. A Professor Riskin hypothesized about methane gas sea explosions causing prehistoric earth to scorch. The scientific community was not convinced about gas exploding out of the ocean until in 1986 Lake Nios in Cameroon, Africa exploded from 1.6 million tons of CO2 gas being released that had settled on the bottom. Over 1700 people were asphyxiated up to 16 miles away along with all their livestock, some 3000 head of cattle.
 
Scientists argued for a while that it was a volcanic eruption and a mix of sulfur that caused the explosion, but sulfur substances weren’t found. The survivors of the explosion claimed they smelled sulfur but there is evidently something called olfactory hallucinations associated with CO2 asphyxiation and one of them is the smell of sulfur.

According to an article on Bnet, it was believed carbon dioxide gas build-up had a volcanic origin and built up slowly in the lake over a long period of time. U.S. researchers didn’t know exactly what triggered the explosion, but it was never believed a volcano or earthquake was responsible. French researchers disagreed. They believed the exploding cloud that dispersed throughout the area traveling at 40 mph was a mix “of steam, carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds that had been building up in a layer of groundwater heated by volcanic rocks far below the lake. These compounds reportedly were injected into the lake when the pressure of the steam eventually cracked the rock that had been holding it down.”

The problem is “U.S.scientists said lake temperatures were not elevated, its bottom did not appear to have been disturbed, there were no volcanic sulfides in the lake and no suspended sediments that might have resulted had steam rushed through bottom sediments.”

Either way we look at it, whether the CO2 was just laying there and blew or was caused by too much pressure from too much CO2 being injected into the rock fissures, it does not bode well for a future with too much CO2 around. So much for the gasification process relative to “clean coal.”

Coal burns filthy. The reason why it’s recently being touted as “clean” is because of a gasification process where the CO2 pollution is trapped, and liquified. The pollution never gets into the air but the liquified CO2 needs some place to go. Just like the spent fuel of a nuke, the best place for the leftover liquid CO2 is to put it in the ground by injection. But do we know how much CO2 is safe to inject? Will we have to worry about CO2 geisers in the future?  If so the future is looking pretty prehistoric. Told ya we’re dinosaurs.

Read more about the Lake Nios’ explosion:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v131/ai_4645289

Get a load of our democratic process with this latest veto out of Washington. The Bush EPA nixed California’s proposed emission standards for the state that targeted the trucking, shipping, cement, semiconductor and consumer product industries. Instead Bush signed into law a new energy bill that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2009 and by 40 percent by 2020. The EPA said this covers the issue of emissions, end of story. Was that apples to apples?

Sixteen other states have already approved emissions laws and were waiting for this waiver by the EPA too. The EPA is supposed to have sole authority to make pollution rules, but our Federal Clean Air Act allows states to create their own rules with an EPA-approved waiver. The waiver was nixed today. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of 12 states that sued the same EPA for dragging their feet about CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court had to tell the EPA that greenhouse gases can be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and they were in violation for not regulating them. And today the EPA blocked California and the other states from doing what should have been the EPA’s job and substituted with Bush’s flimsy energy bill. 

So the states go through a lot of effort for nothing. The emission laws were part of California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The NRDC and many public interest groups co-sponsored it. California committed to reducing overall global warming pollution by 30% by 2020. They figured on new technologies as well as pollution cutting strategies to meet these goals. They sought the help of E2, “a national network of business people who work with the NRDC to champion the economic benefits of good environmental policy” and “who built a solid case for the ways in which curbing global warming could actually benefit California’s economy” (Nature’s Voice Newsletter by the NRDC Jan/Feb 2008). Just what I thought. Green is good for the economy.

I was intrigued by E2 and read on that they argue, “that clean technologies would create jobs and attract new companies to the state…supported by the fact that clean tech now ranks third in venture capital investment in North America.” Told ya so Michigan. Clean technology isn’t likely to coexist alongside coalburners and refineries. They showed that California would save “barrels” of money by reducing dependence on fossil fuel. It also stated that it took 124 meetings at the state capital by E2 volunteer members to “present their business-based argument.” They worked hard to come up with legislation that protects the environment and creates economic opportunity. They believe global warming controls will spur economic prosperity. This was a great program, until the automobile lobby got involved. Yeah, another lobby.

According to our own Detroit News:

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California’s request, according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.
While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

California filed a lawsuite challenging the EPA’s denial of the waiver. And there is a House Committee investigating the agency’s decision to deny it also. This is getting good.

.
Read more about the veto at: http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/epa-nixes-states-plan-to-limit-greenhouse-gases/#comment-285.

Read more about E2: http://www.e2.org/jsp/main.jsp.

About the Supreme Courts decision: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june07/emissions_5-29.html.

The Detroit News article about the auto lobby: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/AUTO01/707050350/1148.

I don’t know if any other people interested in moving forward with all types of alternative energy have noticed the purposeful placement of the word “foreign” in many of the presidential contenders, Bush/Cheney, and legislator’s speeches. When a politician says they will make sure to fund research for new technologies to get us away from “foreign” oil dependence, they are probably talking money for a new type of oil drilling process. Technically, they won’t be lying, just misleading, if you tend to disregard that tricky little word “foreign.”

Granted, it’s been said that we do not have alternative technology available yet to take up the brunt of our oil demand, but it seems we keep looking to only one, and not a combination of alternative sources. What about a combination of alternative energy sources? I hear this idea floating around, but no gelling. The Sierra Club of Michigan has a very good presentation that shows a combination of energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, etc., plus conservation programs like reclaiming wastewater, and recycling may meet all of our energy demands in Michigan. But we’re not advancing toward a future that will no longer be reliant on one big massive conglomerate like the oil cartel is to us right now. It seems we work toward monopolies in this country. Then we’re upset when we’re stuck with them without a choice. We should be looking to all venues to move forward for our energy future, not reinforcing the idea of fossil fuel again, like it’s all right because it belongs to us. 

I see the big push to get away from “foreign” oil as the big ruse to drill in the Arctic circle, the polar bear habitat, Utah, even Livonia, MI for Pete’s sake, and anywhere a slant oil drill can legitimately be utilized to “not’ enter our protected National Parks. They do so anyway at an angle right under protected habitat, while doing a great deal of damage with all the accompanying paraphernalia like roads, pipeline, trucks, heavy equipment, and trash. Ditto for coal mining. Using coal is getting away from “foreign” oil, all oil, but is still perpetuating the use of filthy fossil fuel that will eventually run out. Sure it might be thousands of years before it does, but at what price, gutting the countryside, ruining the earth trying?

So beware of that tricky little “foreign” word that comes before oil. It’s not a detail that should go unnoticed, because it doesn’t make any difference. It does, or they wouldn’t be slipping it in there.  It makes all the difference in our lives, our environment, and our world whether our future continues to poke around the earth and the oceans below for oil or coal that is “OURS.” Our oil and coal burn just as filthy as the “foreign” stuff.

Now we’re finally getting solid documentation that man is indeed having a great impact on the environment. The NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that humans caused nearly ½ of the bad weather we experienced last year. This is not a U.N. conspiracy like some like to call environmentalism. This is that voice on the weather band on your car audio: “This is NOAA weather and hazard” at least that’s what it sounds like. This is our national weather service that did the study spanning 1998 to 2006.

The NOAA ran 42 different tests using data of weather conditions relative to human activity and El Nino’s. The article I read on MSN went into detail how they did it, why it took awhile, and the not so surprising results. At least a growing majority of us are seeing and believing. It’s a pretty good weather page from MSN.

Look at some of the weather reports on there for just this past week:

A cyclone hit the coast of Bangladesh with winds up to 155 mph.  At least 425 people were killed, 1000 fishermen, and hundreds more are unaccounted for. The summer floods there just killed 1000 people.

Vietnam flooded last weekend. 100,000 people have no food. They lost it all, 190,000 houses are submerged. The flooding has been going on for a month with over 250 dead.

A major 7.7 earthquake in Chile “crushed cars, damaged thousands of houses, blocked roads and terrified people for hundreds of miles around Wednesday. Chilean authorities reported at least two deaths and more than 150 injuries.

The quake, which struck at 12:40 p.m., shook the Chilean capital 780 miles to the south of the epicenter, and was felt as far away as the other side of the continent — in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1,400 miles to the east.”

The next day the northern part of Chile was hit with huge aftershocks of 6.2 and 6.8 injuring about 100 people and killing 2.

Atlanta’s out of water.

This is a wake up call. The longer we wait for policy, the more it’s not going to be pretty. On the NOAA weather site they have listed the major catastrophic weather events going back to 1990. I did the same about 2 years ago, and wouldn’t have now that I see how nicely they’ve compiled it!  I went back to 1990 and printed a list of all catastrophic events per page for each year to 2001. 1990 barely filled a quarter of a page. 2001 was 2 ½ pages printed no double spacing. I don’t think I used NOAA, but another International Weather Service that had the events by year but not in a neat little list.

Check out the NOAA website yourself and scan the climate events. There are many recently and as you scan down to 1990 it dwindles to about 2 or 3 events. That’s a scannable eye opener. Every line scanned represents a catastrophe somewhere in the world where someone died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20481186/wid/18298287/.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/hazards/index.php.
 

This should be pretty good. I watched the one on the Science Channel. It answered quite a few of the questions I’ve heard floating around and showcased some of America’s most energy efficient cities like New York. I will be blogging about that soon.

 CNN appears to be more accessible to the general public than the Science Channel but I still think that every major network should keep the environment in our faces until we realize duh, it sustains us, we should take better care of it than stripping it bare of everything and leaving a trail of pollution.

I’m sick and tired of the underhanded movements of the Bush/Cheney administration’s all out assault on nature. Their latest accomplishment: A proposal introduced in August that would dismantle vital protections for our National Forests and grasslands and eliminate key federal protections for all wildlife in those areas as reported by Defenders of Wildlife.   

You must know they intend to enter our national forests to drill for oil and strip mine mountaintops for coal. They lie through their teeth as expected. They’re oilmen and are not in earnest about pushing too much for alternative energy. Bush didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty because it would hurt whom? Industry. He promised instead to regulate industry emissions ourselves. He has been pushing for self-regulation in industry from the beginning. Self-regulation is the fox watching the henhouse.  Let’s see how this administration regulated big business pollution over the past 7 years? 

• They removed key sections of the Clean Water and Air Acts. These have always had bipartisan support because they are crucial to our health!  Have you noticed the rise in cancers of all types? There as been no progression to test for air pollutants in neighborhoods across the country relative to a rise in illness and disease for the past 7 years. 

• They’ve cut the EPA enforcement to its lowest level on record, so they aren’t watching what goes on.  There has been a great reduction in fines to huge polluters, nearly a 2/3 reduction and criminal prosecution for offenders has dropped by 1/3. Our Senate in Michigan just some of them tax breaks and want to cut the budget, which will mean our state won’t be watching polluters here either. 

• They’ve disabled the Superfund program. Superfund is used for cleaning up millions of pounds of industrial waste in neighborhoods in 48 states. You know the fact that Superfund even exists is an acknowledgement by the opposition that we do indeed produce a huuuuuge amount of industrial waste. Do we really think this stuff will just disappear?

• They’ve totally ignored any pledges to protect native plants and animals from extinction and are the first administration to not add one single species to the list even though we read about 100’s of species that are near extinction right now.

• They’ve reversed the ban on commercial whaling that was in place since 1986 under Reagan.

• Millions of acres of wilderness and our most sensitive public lands have been opened to logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling. One plan allowed 10% of all trees in California’s Giant Sequoia Park to be removed. 200-year-old trees cut down. We’ve had enough fires this past summer destroying forests that this is just like the looting that takes place after a disaster.

• Other national parks have either had land up for sale by public auction or for development like the million acres Grand Canyon-Parashant Monument in Arizona, the 2,000-foot spires at Fisher Towers, Utah. Arches National Park in Utah has 1200 mining claims within 10 miles! Texas might soon auction off part of its Christmas Mountains. The wealthy are buying the country.

 I think that anyone who assaults the earth, the air, the water of any nation this way, ultimately assaults its people. Without clean soil we cannot grow food. We need air to breathe, and water to drink. The faster we get away from fossil fuels the quicker we help the world renew itself, and the quicker we disable the stronghold of power shared by industry and government that will do its best to keep us from advancing into a green future, ruining the environment in the process.  Crimes against humanity come to mind when I think of our present government. And it continues without opposition!  An awful lot of people think the Bush administration will be gone in short time. They do not physically leave office until Jan. 2009. That gives them 15 more months to contribute to the extinction of at least 200 species already threatened. And don’t forget the lovely weather we’re having. It will most assuredly get worse, while this government aids polluters.   http://www.defenders.org/index.php.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939345/crimes_against_nature/.    

With the news that Marathon Oil refinery will more than likely expand its facility in Detroit to the dismay of the environmental community, I have to wonder why? Aren’t we supposed to be getting away from fossil fuels altogether? I know there is other rhetoric floating around that makes the distinction between “altogether” and “foreign oil” that seems to be confusing many, but I’m pretty sure that environmentalism means altogether.

Texas isn’t confused as to what to do to “go green” or not to “go green”. When I think of Texas, I think of the most coalburners, oil refineries, and a bad environment in general. But even Texas is forging ahead. An MSNBC article about “The Texas Wind Rush” as Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson calls it, states that Texas leads the nation in wind production. The state just successfully held bids for offshore tracts of land dedicated to wind power. They plan to have 2 more open bidding sessions next year. Texas is ahead of environmentally friendly California by 1000 megawatts of wind power.
 
Jerry also said “If you’re in the wind business, whether it’s onshore or offshore, Texas is the place to be.” Hear that Michigan, Texas is going wind-power and we’re considering more coalburners and a refinery expansion? Know what else Jer says: “And wherever there are pioneers, the settlers soon follow.”

With many exiting Michigan, maybe it ought to take heed, think green for a change. We seem to be stuck on encouraging polluters for the sake of jobs, instead of encouraging green industry. The Sierra Club ranks Michigan among the top 15 states to be able to generate a large amount of wind power.

Texas plans to use the revenue generated by the wind industry for schools. The article said: “When the wind farms are operating, the company will pay the state’s Permanent School Fund a minimum of $132 million over the 30-year life of the leases. The state is to make even more money from a percentage of the company’s energy production revenue.” Jerry and his cohorts are smart cookies.
 
Maybe Michigan should send an envoy to Texas to get the gist of how to entice people to move to Michigan by inviting new technology and then figuring how to keep money flowing in from that technology to offset the tax burden on taxpayers for schools since it takes such a big chunk out of tax revenues. We could get rid of that new special services tax. Michigan’s congress needs to quit struggling with power and get crackin’ on something new like wind energy for Michigan.

 Read more about the “Texas Wind Rush” at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21113169/
 

BP says it will stick to the limitations in its former permit for wastewater emissions at its Whiting Refinery in Indiana. This comes after pressure from environmentalists in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois that were joined by politicians. BP will try to redo the plans for its new expansion to accommodate that former permit, but said if they can’t, and the material costs go too high, they may have to scrap the expansion in Indiana.

This is another example of a company waving pollution vs. jobs again, like the Holcim plant in Dundee. BP claims to be putting millions into alternatives for the environment in its commercials, but are only giving-in now due to the large outcry and publicity over their newly won permit. The new permit would have allowed 54% more ammonia, and 34% more sludge into Lake Michigan.

I could see if there were absolutely no other alternatives for BP but there are filtration systems used by other refineries that double filter the water to counteract unnecessary pollution. Why didn’t BP do that in the first place if they claim to be so environmental? Costs?  They worry about money! How much more can they possibly want? While BP isn’t Exxon Mobil, they’re close enough. Exxon Mobil made $75,000 per minute last year. The Holcim plant that threatens to close its doors is the same way. A billion dollar company and it won’t put 6.5 million into finally cleaning up its act. It spends every bit as much to lobby every year to get its way and pollute.

I don’t like the spin of pollution vs. jobs. It’s dangerous and usually based in greed. It’s also unnecessary, when there are all sorts of jobs to be had in a green economy too. The Eco Tech series on the Science Channel thought upwards of 250,000 jobs would be created with green business. It’s waiting to happen if we can get  fossil fuel people to move over. It would do our world and everything in it a whole lotta good. 

Read more about BP:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=43729&newsdate=16-Aug-2007 http://www.takingdownwords.com/taking_down_words/2007/08/make-it-go-away.html      

We have so many environmental groups and they are doing a great job. They have been successful in enlisting many, many corporations to urge Congress to get moving on global warming. Environmental Defense started USCAP (U.S. Climate Action Partnership). They have a lot of companies that have joined and more are being added to the list all the time. USCAP is united as a force to help get Congress moving on global warming and is successful so far.

I was looking over the list and there is a little bit of irony on that list. BP who is doing that 3.8 billion dollar expansion at their refinery in Indiana, which will pollute Lake Michigan more, is on the list. Now does this seem funny to you? If I expand my oil refinery, I’m planning on refining a lot more crude, but at the same time want to help with global warming. Staying status quo until new alternatives hit the market is one thing, but expansion? It just doesn’t appear that BP is maintaining their oil business as much as increasing it. Does it?

I saw their commercials that they are investing millions on alternative energies.  But now they are polluting Lake “Michigan” That’s hitting a little too close to home. And won’t an expansion of the refinery produce more oil, to consume and create more CO2? I realize a bigger refinery means less dependence on foreign oil, and that our refineries are not up to par, but BP is a foreign oil company and polluting our lake. It’s our lake. It’s named Michigan.

As for the list, isn’t it contrary that they are on the USCAP list? Do environmental organizations screen the companies that go on the list to see if they are double-talking,or do they hope by helping they will soon practice what they preach? The American car companies are on the list also, but paid $40 million last year to lobby Congress about the Energy Bill and mpg standards they wanted to lower. The way I see it, is you are either in earnest about alternative sources of energy and start showing us something, or we just have to believe what we see with our own eyes, that companies that pollute, and have not really curbed their actions to pollute, are not being honest about wanting change. We’re getting ready to drill in the Artic Refuge for Pete’s sake. Are we stupid?