Chlorine Carted Out of Canada

  • A Canadian chemical manufacturer shipped rail cars of toxic chlorine away from Vancouver and is storing them in rural Washington State. (Photo source: Wikimedia Commons)

Environmental groups suspect tight
security at the Vancouver Olympics
has shifted an environmental risk
from Canada to the US. Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups suspect tight
security at the Vancouver Olympics
has shifted an environmental risk
from Canada to the US. Shawn Allee reports:

A Canadian chemical manufacturer shipped rail cars of toxic chlorine away from Vancouver and is storing them in rural Washington State.

The company says it’s part of a long-planned renovation of the chemical plant. Environmental groups suspect the rail shipments were timed to move tanks away from the Olympics.

Fred Millar is watching this development for Friends of the Earth. Millar says terrorists have shown interest in rail cars filled with chlorine gas.

“And that’s what people are mostly worried about because just one chlorine tank car could put out a cloud over any city at a lethal level that’s 15 miles long by 4 miles wide.”

US rail companies make 100,000 shipments of chlorine and similar toxic chemicals per year. Their safety record has largely been good, but accidents have released deadly chlorine gas.

One derailment in South Carolina killed nine people.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Mixed Messages on Oil and Gas Drilling

  • Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that there would be more auctions for drilling leases this year. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

The federal government leases public
land to oil and natural gas companies
for drilling. For at least the last
decade, energy companies have called
the shots. The Obama Administration
has indicated things are different now.
Conrad Wilson reports, there are some
inconsistencies in the Obama Administration’s
plan to reign in the industry:

Transcript

The federal government leases public
land to oil and natural gas companies
for drilling. For at least the last
decade, energy companies have called
the shots. The Obama Administration
has indicated things are different now.
Conrad Wilson reports, there are some
inconsistencies in the Obama Administration’s
plan to reign in the industry:

Because of the recession, we’re not using as much energy. For the last
several months, there’s been a glut of oil and natural gas. Big oil and
natural gas companies saw record profits a couple of years ago – but those
profits are down now.

If you ask the energy companies, it would seem the biggest culprit is not
the economy, but the federal government.

For instance, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is blamed for energy
companies’ falling profits. That’s because he’s criticized oil and gas
companies for acting like they have a right to drill on as much public land
as they want.

“Trade groups for the oil and gas industry repeatedly launch attacks that
have all the poison and deception of election year politics. Trade groups
for the oil and gas industry need to understand that they do not own the
nation’s public lands, tax payers do.”

That sounds like tough talk, right? And in many ways it is. There have
been some major reforms that change the way business is done between the
government and and oil and gas drillers.

But behind all this stick waving, the industry’s also getting a carrot. In
a conciliatory gesture, Salazar announced that there would be more auctions
for drilling leases this year.

The industry says it needs access to even more land. Kathleen Sgamma
directs government affairs for the Denver-based trade group Independent
Petroleum Association of Mountain States. In November, her office issued a
report criticizing the Department of Interior. Among the many concerns, was
the amount of land offered for lease.

“Our full paper looked at all of the things that the Interior Department is
doing to make it more difficult to develop American natural gas and oil on
federal lands. And one of those things is a slow down in permitting.”

But the government says a slow down in permits and leases is not causing
lower profits for oil and gas. As it is, companies are not drilling or
pumping where they already have leases – because there’s a glut of
supplies.

In Western Colorado, the Thompson Divide Coalition wants to cancel leases
and prevent drilling. Lisa Moreno heads up the alliance of ranchers,
hunters, and conservationists.

“The fact of the matter is, is the industry has a huge amount of acreage
under lease that they haven’t developed.”

Moreno says energy companies have leased about 47 million acres, but the
oil and gas companies are only using about one-third of that land right
now.

So why do oil and gas companies want more land? Even if energy companies
don’t use the lands for drilling, they’re still an important asset.

Jeremy Nichols is Climate and Energy Program Director for WildEarth
Guardians. Nichols says leases represent assets and are used to attract
investors.

“And so drilling is just part of what they do. They’re also basically land
holding companies. You know, they’re buying and selling each other left and
right. And so it’s more than just to drill or not to drill. It’s a lot
more, it’s a lot more complicated than that.”

If that’s the case, why is the government opening more leases?

Well, Jeremy Nichols thinks Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is trying to
kiss and make up.

“You know, I’ll be honest I think Salazar appearing conciliatory. But the
oil and gas industry is going to be critical no matter what Salazar does.
The oil and gas industry just doesn’t like to be regulated; they don’t like
to be told what to do. And so they’re going to complain no matter what.”

And so, more of the public’s land will be held by oil and gas drillers who
won’t be producing much until the economy recovers, prices go up and they
can make more money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Ad Campaign Targets Senators

  • The advertisements are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:

Transcript

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:

The ads call Murkowski’s resolution the “Dirty Air Act”. They’re sponsored by a coalition of environmental and faith-based advocacy groups.

Eric Sapp is with the American Values Network, which co-sponsored the ads. He says the spots are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.

“They’re moderate Democrats and Republicans who have been getting a lot of pressure to vote the wrong way on this bill. And our goal in these is to make sure the people know what’s going on, and then to let the Senators know that we will be able to stand behind them if they vote the right way.”

It’s not clear exactly when Murkowski’s resolution will move forward – especially now that a major snow storm is blanketing Washington and disrupting the Senate calendar.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Oil and Prices at the Pump

  • Right now, we’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Energy analysts say a glut of
oil means gas prices probably
won’t spike too much this year.
Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Energy analysts say a glut of
oil means gas prices probably
won’t spike too much this year.
Rebecca Williams has more:

We’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago. The good news is, we’re not likely to see four dollar-a-gallon gas anytime soon.

“We’re not in a world with runaway oil prices.”

That’s Ruchir Kadakia. He’s a global oil market expert with IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. He says weak global demand is keeping oil prices in check for now. At the same time, supply is relatively high. He predicts oil won’t average much higher than 80 dollars a barrel for the next year or so.

“And so what that really means for the gasoline point is through probably 2011, we shouldn’t expect to see gasoline prices much above three dollars unless it’s for a short period of time maybe in the summertime for a few months.”


Kadakia says oil speculators can drive prices higher or lower in the short term. But he doesn’t think we’ll see any major price spikes over the long term.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Time to Eat the Dog?

  • Meredith Mull loves dogs. She owns five and works as a groomer. She's not getting rid of any of her pets to help the environment. (Photo by Julie Grant)

We’ve all heard about the
environmental problems our
gas-guzzling cars and trucks
cause. But some researchers
say our vehicles aren’t the
biggest energy hogs. The biggest
energy users actually live
in our homes. Julie Grant
reports about the new book
‘Time To Eat The Dog?’ about
the wasteful ways of our pets:

Transcript

We’ve all heard about the
environmental problems our
gas-guzzling cars and trucks
cause. But some researchers
say our vehicles aren’t the
biggest energy hogs. The biggest
energy users actually live
in our homes. Julie Grant
reports about the new book
‘Time To Eat The Dog?’ about
the wasteful ways of our pets:

Robert Vale is sorry. He didn’t set out to incriminate Fido. He and his wife Brenda Vale specialize in sustainable living at Victoria University in New Zealand. And they just wanted to see how much of the world’s resources it takes to do things like eat, work, play sports, and own pets.

“The thing that most surprised us, and was the most unexpected was the scale of the impact of pets – which was really, really high.”

Vale says a big dog, like a German Shepard, actually has a bigger ecological footprint than an SUV.

To measure the ecological paw-print of pets, the Vales looked at the ingredients in common brands of dried pet foods. Based on recommended portion sizes, they calculated that a medium sized dog would consume more than 3 ounces of dried meat a day. To get that much dried meat, the Vales found, it takes nearly a pound of fresh meat. Add that up each day, and they concluded a medium sized dog eats about 360 pounds of meat a year!

Robert Vale says raising that meat – beef, lamb and chicken – has an environmental impact.

“And we did the calculation based on a dog eating chicken, which is a fairly low footprint meat, rather than say beef, which is a fairly high footprint meat. So, we tried to bias it in favor of the dog. But it still came out really big. It was a big surprise, really.”

Vale says the dog takes more than 2 and a half times more energy and resources than building and driving an SUV 6000 miles a year.

These numbers aren’t just coming from the Vales.
The New Scientist Magazine asked the Stockholm Environment Institute in England to calculate a dog’s paw-print, and the findings were almost exactly the same.

But none of this really computes with dog-lover Meredith Mull. She doesn’t understand why Robert Vale would even look into this.

“He must not have a pet. He must not know what it’s like to be loved by an animal and take care of it and have it give you nothing but respect and loyalty and love. He must not know what it feels like.”

The Vales don’t have any pets. They used to have cats and other animals. But when they died, Robert Vale says they felt they shouldn’t replace them and use more of the world’s resources just to give themselves a little more comfort.

“We are increasingly pushing up to a question of limits. What can we have, what, everything. I think to some extent, that’s why it’s unpopular. We’ve all been brought up to believe that not only can we have more of everything, but it’s our right to have more of everything.”

But some people think the Vales are barking up the wrong tree.

Chetana Mirle works on global warming issues at the Humane Society of the United States. She says instead of blaming dogs, people should look at what they, themselves are eating – and how that contributes to environmental problems.

“So to me, I felt like, ‘are you kidding me?’ Um, we’re worried about our pets, and what our pets are eating instead of what we’re eating, and what our consumption is about – which has such a huge disproportionately large impact on climate change and the environment in general.”

It’s not that the researchers want people to blame dogs and cats instead of themselves. They say they just want people to understand that each choice we make – right down to whether we have pets – has an environmental impact.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Ethanol Goes to Court in Cali

  • California regulators want car fuels to come from sources that create fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That means corn-based ethanol will soon get a kind of penalty in California's fuel market. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The US government is steadily
increasing the amount of ethanol
used in our gasoline supply.
But Shawn Allee reports
that effort’s hit a roadblock
in the country’s largest gasoline
market:

Transcript

The US government is steadily
increasing the amount of ethanol
used in our gasoline supply.
But Shawn Allee reports
that effort’s hit a roadblock
in the country’s largest gasoline
market:

California regulators want car fuels to come from sources that create fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That means corn-based ethanol will soon get a kind of penalty in California’s fuel market.

Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council say ethanol should be at a disadvantage. The NRDC’s Roland Hwang says when we grow corn for fuel, farmers overseas plant more corn.

“Someone’s going to cut down a rain forest or convert pasture land or grass land to grow more food. Unfortunately, converting that land will lead to very dramatic increases in global warming pollution.”

Hwang wants the ethanol industry to stop using food crops for fuel.

Ethanol makers are not taking California’s rules sitting down, though; they’ve gone to court. They argue more lenient federal rules on ethanol should trump California’s.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: Coal’s Future

  • A coal mine in West Virginia. (Photo by Erika Celeste)

The coal industry wants us to
believe in the idea of ‘clean coal.’
But burning coal emits a lot of
carbon dioxide, the greenhouse
gas contributing to climate change.
The coal-burning electric power
industry is just now testing technology
to capture CO2 and to permanently
store it. The second round of tests
is happening at American Electric
Power’s Mountaineer Power Plant
in New Haven, West Virginia. Hank
Courtright is monitoring those tests.
He’s with the non-profit Electric Power
Research Institute. Lester Graham
talked with him and asked how the
tests are going:

Transcript

The coal industry wants us to
believe in the idea of ‘clean coal.’
But burning coal emits a lot of
carbon dioxide, the greenhouse
gas contributing to climate change.
The coal-burning electric power
industry is just now testing technology
to capture CO2 and to permanently
store it. The second round of tests
is happening at American Electric
Power’s Mountaineer Power Plant
in New Haven, West Virginia. Hank
Courtright is monitoring those tests.
He’s with the non-profit Electric Power
Research Institute. Lester Graham
talked with him and asked how the
tests are going:

Hank Courtright: We think it has great progress, it’s really the second step of a multi-step process that we’re doing. We had just concluded a project up in Wisconsin on a smaller scale, the same type of technology, and it was very successful. It capture 90-plus percent of the CO2 that passed through it and saw some great promises as far as reducing the cost of doing it. The idea here is that we’re scaling it up ten times larger at the mountaineer plant and so far the early results seem very good and we’ll continue to test that over a year plus to see how it does produce.

Lester Graham: I understand it takes a lot more energy to run this extra CO2 capture equipment, as much as 30% more coal has to be burned to generate the same amount of electricity, what’s being called a parasitic load. What’s this going to mean for our power bills?

Hank: Well, what we’re trying to Lester is that the parasitic load gets down into the, let’s say, the 10 to 15% range. If you get to that level, it means that the electricity out of a coal plant might be about 25% higher than it is. But right now coal is basically the cheapest form of producing electricity, so it still ends as being an economical option even if you might be increasing the cost of that coal plant by about 25%.

Lester: If they can accomplish that with this experiment, how long will it take to get this technology built into the bulk of coal burning power plants?

Hank: Well, you’re going to be working over this for several decades, really. If this plant at Mountaineer works well, our thinking is around 2020 you’re going to be able to have most new coal power plants use the carbon capture and storage. And you might be able to retrofit about 20%, 25% of the existing plants in the United States with this type of technology.

Lester: If all of these methods fizzle, we can’t capture carbon economically, or at the other end, we can’t find a way to sequester this carbon underground, or whatever type of method they can come up with, what’s next?

Hank: Well, that causes some difficulties because right here in the United States coal is used to produce about half our electricity. And if it doesn’t work on coal, it’s also the issue that it won’t work on any other fossil fuels such as natural gas, which produces about 20% of our electricity. So you’re into a difficult situation that if you’d wanted to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions to improve the climate change issue, then you’d have to be looking at a combination of probably nuclear power and a very large roll out of renewable energy. Both of those would have to take the lion share of electricity production. But our hope is that we can get this working because it is not only here in the US that you need it on fossil fuels of coal and gas, but also in places like China, Russia, India, Australia, country’s that very large reserves of coal and hope to use those natural resources.

Related Links

Cleaning Up Coal’s Future

  • Lester Graham at the coal mine Shay #1 in Macoupin County, Illinois. He's interviewing the mine general manager Roger Dennison. (Photo courtesy of Phil Ganet)

The coal industry is hopeful
an old technology will help
them clean up an increasingly
unpopular fuel. Lester Graham
reports, without it, coal faces
an uncertain future:

Transcript

The coal industry is hopeful
an old technology will help
them clean up an increasingly
unpopular fuel. Lester Graham
reports, without it, coal faces
an uncertain future:

[Editor’s Note: The script for this story will be posted shortly.]

Related Links

Who Should Regulate What?

  • In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. (Data courtesy of the US EPA. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

The EPA recently announced that
it’s moving forward with regulations
to limit global warming pollutants
like carbon dioxide. Now, some
Senate Republicans want to stop
the EPA. Samara Freemark has that story:

Transcript

The EPA recently announced that
it’s moving forward with regulations
to limit global warming pollutants
like carbon dioxide. Now, some
Senate Republicans want to stop
the EPA. Samara Freemark has that story:

Senate Republicans say, if the country wants to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress should do it – not the EPA.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska. She’s drafted an amendment to put a hold on EPA greenhouse gas regulations for one year.

Critics say the amendment would strip the EPA of an important regulatory tool.

Anne Johnson is a spokesperson for Senator Murkowski. She says regulatory action from the EPA would be too broad and could hurt American businesses.

“Senator Murkowski represents Alaska. It’s ground zero for climate change. There’s no denying that. She knows that we need to do something, and she’s committed to that. At the same time, she’s committed to not harming the economy.”

Murkowski could introduce the amendment as early as this week.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Interview: A Pound of Coal

  • Coal train. (Photo courtesy of the Energy Information Administration)

When you turn on the lights,
there’s a pretty good chance
you’re burning coal. Almost
half of the nation’s electricity
comes from coal. Burning coal
causes the greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide. But, have you
ever wondered how much?
Lester Graham got a pound of
coal, and then talked to Ezra
Hausman. He’s
the Vice President of Synapse
Energy Economics in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. The first question –
how long would a pound of coal
light up a hundred-watt incandescent
light bulb?:

Transcript

When you turn on the lights,
there’s a pretty good chance
you’re burning coal. Almost
half of the nation’s electricity
comes from coal. Burning coal
causes the greenhouse gas,
carbon dioxide. But, have you
ever wondered how much?
Lester Graham got a pound of
coal, and then talked to Ezra
Hausman. He’s
the Vice President of Synapse
Energy Economics in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. The first question –
how long would a pound of coal
light up a hundred-watt incandescent
light bulb?:

Ezra Hausman: Well, you haven’t told me where you got that pound of coal. Uh, it makes a big difference if it’s from the Appalachian region or the Western region, such as Wyoming in the United States. The Appalachian coal, Eastern coal, would burn a light bulb for about, uh, 10 or 12 hours. A pound of Western coal would only burn it for about 5 or 6 hours.

Lester Graham: There’s that much difference?

Ezra: There’s a big difference in the energy content of the coal, that’s correct.

Lester: And coal, a good portion of coal, is pure carbon. What kind of CO2 omissions would we expect from this one kind of coal?

Ezra: Well, a pound of coal is, let’s say, it’s about half carbon. So that would be a half a pound of carbon, but for every atom of carbon you add two atoms of oxygen from the air. So, you get for every 12 grams of carbon, you get 44 grams of carbon dioxide. That’s basically just how the chemistry works out when you burn carbon and oxygen; it produces carbon dioxide in that ratio.

Lester: So, this one pound of coal, would admit, by weight, more CO2 than I have in my hand here?

Ezra: That’s right; it would end up admitting about two pounds of CO2. Depending again on where the coal came from and how much carbon is in it.

Lester: Now my environmentalist friends would like to see no more coal plants built, no more coal burning power plants built, simply because of the CO2 emissions. The coal industry tells me they’re working on clean coal; there are experiments going on right now to find ways to sequester CO2 and other experiments going on how to store it underground. What do you think is the future of coal?

Ezra: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to say that there is no such thing as clean coal today. So in the first place, coal mining is an extremely environmentally damaging and dangerous process. The high volumes techniques that are now in use including strip-mining and mountain top removal have devastating consequences on mining regions. And secondly, while there are techniques in place that eliminate many of the regular pollutants such as sulfur and nitrogen from coal combustion, there is no current technology that can significantly reduce the amount of CO2 emitted from power plants.

Lester: What do you see as the future of coal and power generation from coal in America in the future?

Ezra: Well, I think we really have no option but the phase out the use of coal for power generation over the next several decades. The problem with coal is not that each pound has so much carbon; the problem is that there is just a vast reservoir of carbon and potential carbon dioxide in the coal reserves under ground in the United States.

Ezra Hausman is Vice President of Synapse Energy Economics.
He talked with The Environment Report’s
Lester Graham.

Related Links