Archive for the 'Environment' Category

I’ve written elsewhere, as have others, that GWBush&Co is still out there stumping to open ANWR for oil drilling. The whole idea is like one of those movie monsters that you can’t kill. It just keeps on coming back. There are no good reasons to drill in the arctic, but they are persistent, and their persistence could yet pay.

I worked for a few years as a door-to-door canvasser, and one of the campaigns I was involved in was the ANWR drilling issue. This was about five or six years ago, but the numbers haven’t changed all that much since.

• The USGS estimated roughly a six month supply of oil at current use rates. That’s based on an estimate of 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil over the life of the project and an annual usage in this country alone of about 7 billion barrels. Do the math.
• It was projected to take anywhere from 7 to 12 years for the first drop to come out of the pipe. 2002 consumption rates would likely be wildly inaccurate by then.
• There were not, nor are there now, any guarantees that the US would even see the oil. It could be sold by the big players in the project anywhere in the world. Wherever they could get the biggest profits.
• Oil prices wouldn’t come down noticeably. It was estimated that the price of a barrel of oil would drop about 30 to 50 cents with the addition of ANWR oil on the market. That was based on the figure of $27/barrel — even allowing for a per barrel price of ten times that in the next ten to fifteen years, that would only be about a 3 to 5 buck difference.

None of this even takes into account the potential environmental devastation this would unleash. This scheme to drill ANWR has been shot down numerous times already. It’s time to bury it for good. At a time when we need to be putting our efforts and our time and our money into alternatives to fossil fuels, we shouldn’t even be considering this foolishness anymore. To sacrifice much of the fragile arctic for a last-gasp effort for quick oil profits speaks poorly of us.

Looks like BP’s coal-bed methane project in the North Flathead in Canada is dead. Some good work by Max Baucus, as well as several citizen’s groups, convinced BP to back off of this mess.

BP plans for methane projects in the Elk River Valley in the Lake Koocanusa drainage are still alive though as are Cline Mining’s plans for coal mining in the Flathead drainage. There is much yet to be done. From an email from Max’s office:

Baucus is working to make sure coal-bed methane is never developed in the North Fork. However, right now BP is still moving forward with a coal-bed methane development in the Elk River Valley, which drains into Montana’s Lake Koocanusa. In addition Cline Mining Corporation is still looking into efforts to develop a coal mine in the region.

“We’re fighting the coal mine just as much as we’re fighting coal-bed methane,” said Baucus. “We’ve won an important battle, but we haven’t won the war yet. I won’t rest until the Flathead is completely protected.”

To protect the Elk River Valley from increased pollution, Baucus is urging the Canadian Federal government to do a full federal level environmental assessment of the project before the first test well is drilled.

You can find out more here.

I sent Max an email of thanks. Will you?

I’ve mentioned a time or two, though maybe not here, that I think the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act is one hell of a good idea. A far-reaching, visionary wilderness plan that would protect about 20 million interconnected acres of grizzly habitat and wild land. I don’t have high hopes of it ever getting off the ground, it’s too far ahead of the curve, but it’s still one hell of an idea.

I listened to some of the House subcommittee hearing on NREPA back in October, and caught some of Denny Rehberg’s horrified opposition to the plan. He instead talked about the virtues of another plan you may have heard about, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership. This, according to Denny and a number of others, is a smart plan that brings opposing sides to the table to locally work out a compromise rather than allowing ‘outsiders’ to decide the fate of our wildlands. A couple of environmental groups and a few timber industry reps as well as a couple of other interested parties hammered out a plan for about 3.3 million acres in the Beaverhead Deerlodge NF, much of which lies right in the heart of the land being considered in the NREPA.

So what’s the plan? Briefly, it calls for roughly a half-million acres of new wilderness, much of which will be add-ons to existing areas. That may sound good on the surface to wilderness advocates, seeing as there haven’t been any new wilderness designations in Montana in the last 25 years or so, but it’s all ‘rocks and ice’ terrain that would be protected whether it’s designated or not simply due to it’s rugged nature. It has no value for commercial interests. No lower lying interconnected areas would be established. The timber industry in return would get roughly 700,000 acres for logging and roadbuilding, virtually everything they wanted in the first place, and more than the original FS plans would have allowed. Some compromise.  What’s most alarming is that if this plan is adopted it will cut the guts out of NREPA and effectively kill it.

I only have one thing to say to the Montana Wilderness Association and Trout Unlimited and the National Wildlife Federation who were all sitting at the table. Though I generally support and admire the hard work you do to protect our wildlands and wildlife, I think you caved in big time on this one. This is more of the same old business as usual approach to protecting wilderness that we’ve seen for decades now. Accepting a few table scraps while allowing industry to walk away with the feast is a giant step in the wrong direction. What were you thinking?

Maybe BP should change the colors of it’s corporate logo or something. They’ve touted themselves for a number of years now as a ‘green’ oil company, ‘beyond petroleum’ and all that. So what do they do? They invest billions in the tar-sands projects in northern Alberta, basically saying ’sorry folks, there’s just too much money to be made here to leave this alone.’

The tar-sands mining is already wreaking havoc on the fragile ecosystem of the far north. Water supplies are being contaminated to the point where they are becoming deadly. The craters and tailings ponds are visible from space. That’s just what’s been done so far. When BP and the other big-oil players enter the game the destruction will accelerate. The amount of water used for processing will rise dramatically. The same with natural gas. CO2 emissions too. It all adds up to what the Independent calls the worst environmental crime in history.

Will we ever get it? Will humans ever accept and adapt to their role as one, but only one, of the mammals in a complex web of life? Will we re-discover our rightful place in nature and live accordingly? Given the insane rush to continue these kinds of projects, to keep the oil flowing at all costs, it doesn’t seem likely.

With Pete Domenici retiring from the Senate, speculation is that the Dems can pick up another senate seat. But what would be the gain other than adding to a possible majority, as considerable as that is?

Well, there’s Domenici’s environmental record for one thing. Pete had a recent rating from the League of Conservation Voters of 13%, and it’s been dropping. He hasn’t been a strong voice for environmental protections to say the least. He won’t be missed in those circles.

New Mexico has another guy though who is quite popular and well known. A guy named Bill Richardson. Though hardly a flaming enviro, his positions are a cut above most. He proposes aggressive action to combat climate change. He has bought into the myth of clean coal, but is opposed to drilling in the arctic and allowing road-building in roadless areas. He could well represent a step in the direction of ecological sanity.

Richardson must know he’s a long, long shot in the upcoming presidential race. But he could be a strong contender for a senate seat in New Mexico. Some think he could win in a landslide. It seems to me he could do more good as a likely winner in a senatorial race, and as a senator, than as a no-chance candidate for president. Maybe our friends in New Mexico would do well to encourage Bill Richardson to drop out of the presidential race and to run as a candidate for their senate seat. Ya think?

It is true that many of us on the left have been critical of Max Baucus recently, particularly his vote in the resolution against MoveOn.org. However, rumors of his demise in the eyes of the left have been greatly exaggerated by Montana bloggers on the right.

Occasionally Max does something to remind me that I genuinely like the guy. As Don pointed out at Intelligent Discontent, he has recently followed Jon Tester in posting his daily schedule online. That’s something, however small, it is something. Then a little piece of ‘Max Mail’ showed up in my inbox today. According to the press release, Max is the first Senator to address dealing with travel generated carbon emissions.

(Washington, D.C) – Montana Senator Max Baucus is putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to climate change.
-
The senior U.S. Senator today offset his carbon emissions for air travel between Montana and Washington, D.C., paying $1,152 dollars for a year’s worth of travel to begin to help establish a “carbon-neutral footprint.”
-
Baucus today became the first U.S. Senator to use services provided by Native Energy, a privately held Native American energy company, to offset his official Senate travel.

Essentially, NativeEnergy is a firm that will invest your money in the production of renewable energy to offset your carbon emissions. Here is how is works:

• Under federal law, renewable generators can force utilities to buy their power.
• For efficient grid operation, if the utility has to buy the project’s power, it is going to use it.
• As a matter of physics, if the utility uses the renewable project’s power, it must, for any given level of demand, use less from other sources.
• For efficient grid operation, they use less from those generators that have the highest fuel costs – fossil fuel plants.

While I am intrigued by the notion, I am not instantly sold on this idea. It feels a little bit like a papal indulgence. I do understand the equation

more renewables = less fossil fuel

I also like the idea of changing the way that energy works and I appreciate that Max is trying to be a leader in change while bringing personal accountability to the table.

Shane posted earlier about the response he received from Jon Tester regarding mountaintop removal mining. I sent out emails also, but I’ve yet to hear back. I’m sure the replies will be about the same.

Tester did mention the Canadian mining plans in the Flathead drainage north of the border. That’s one to keep an eye on, and there are some folks doing just that. These mines are potentially devastating to the entire Flathead drainage, and though as Americans we have little say in the activities of the Canadians, our senators can work with Canadian officials on this and put some pressure on to do the right thing.

One group from the Kalispell area, the North Fork Preservation Association, is watchdogging the activities of Cline Mining and BP, as well as what Senators Baucus and Tester are doing on the issue. They post links to various newspaper articles around the region that report on the active and proposed mining just a few miles north of our border with Canada. It’s well worth checking out.

You know, I’ve been leery of biofuels all along. It sounds good in theory — burn renewable plant-based fuels rather than carbon-based fuels to reduce CO2 emissions. The only problem is that they would likely make things worse.

Scientists who have been studying the differences are saying that it would be far better in the short-term — say the next century or so — to continue the use of fossil fuels and to do some serious work in re-forestation projects rather than to pin our hopes on biofuels. They say that it would take from 50 to 100 years to offset the carbon emissions that would result from switching the land over to plant-based fuels. At the same time re-forestation would sequester from 2 to 9 times more carbon dioxide than biofuels would eliminate over the next thirty years. That’s a very important time-frame. The next thirty years are going to be crucial.

Does this mean we can relax and continue to burn fossil fuels like we’ve grown accustomed to doing? No. Not at all. We need to practice aggressive conservation practices while we still have the time. We need to raise fuel efficiency standards to where they will actually do some good, and let the car makers whine. We need serious funding and research into things like solar energy and light rail for public transit and a commitment to improving the railroads in general for both shipping and travel. Above all we need to seriously look at the way we live our lives, come to grips with the fact that we’re going to have to make some major changes over the next few decades and get to work on them, and quit looking for quick pie-in-the-sky fixes that might just make things worse.

I ran across this speech given by RFK Jr. at Live Earth the other day, and it touches on much of what I’ve been posting about recently over at that other place. We need to get it together — no more of this crap that good environmental and climate policy is a luxury that we can’t afford. We’re seeing more and more where that line of thinking is getting us.

That said, it got me thinking about the 2008 election again. I haven’t exactly been fired by excitement by the whole deal. In fact I’m pretty disgruntled by the prospects, but it is a fact we’re going to have to face, and like it or not we’re going to have to make a decision in November of ‘08.

As long as he’s in the running I’m behind John Edwards. It’s true enough — by the time of the primaries he’ll most likely sink out of sight as fast as a guy in a concrete overcoat, but I could be wrong, and as long as he’s still standing I’ll do what I can to help hold him up. No he’s not perfect, and yes, I have issues with some of what he says, but I do think he stands head and shoulders above his opponents.

I’ll get to what’s on my mind as briefly as I can here. I like Edwards the best at this point. I also like much of what I hear from Al Gore and RFK Jr., though I sure as hell don’t see any of them as knights in shining armor. One of my big concerns, as big as who actually sits in the White House, is what kind of people is the next president going to surround himself, or herself, with? Presidents don’t act alone. George Bush hasn’t sat down and single-handedly set in place the policies that are dismantling this country of ours. He’s had plenty of help. FDR didn’t sit down with pen and notebook and craft the New Deal by himself. He put people into positions to get it done. The same with JFK and the space program in the 60’s. One thing I’d like to know is what kind of people Edwards, and his opponents for that matter, would nominate for key positions in their administration.

If Edwards is for real, and I’ll assume that he is, the choices could be good, and I think he’s smart enough and genuine enough to make good choices. So just in the spirit of fun, and to play with possibilities, here’s my thought. Edwards, and, oh, let’s say Richardson in the top two chairs. Then for starters I’d like to see Gore and Kennedy in key positions. Cabinet maybe. Perhaps top advisors, sort of a ‘kitchen cabinet’ or ‘brain trust’. Maybe in the case of Kennedy, Attorney General.

There are too many issues and too many positions to fill to go into great detail here, but I trust you get my drift. If a team like this could be put into place, and if they are willing to roll up their sleeves, put their money where their mouths are and get to work, much good could come from it. Our world wouldn’t change overnight, but I think it would be a giant step in the right direction. No?

Mountain snow packs are at record lows, climate change is part of life now. Come August, the State of Montana will probably be on fire. It’s time now, before the blazes start, to examine our priorities.

Many people have chosen, of their own free will, to build their homes at the interface of wilderness and private lands. Many of these homes are in harm’s way and vulnerable to destruction by wild fires. The question is, who should pay to protect these homes?

Last fall, five fire fighters lost their lives battling the Esperenza fire in California. As it turns out, they were protecting an empty mountain vacation home. The loss of life is senseless, but so too is our policy of defending all structures in fire-prone areas at taxpayer expense.

These homes could not be built if the owners could not get fire insurance. They could not get fire insurance if it was understood that taxpayers placed low priority on homes in high risk areas.

I have a suggestion: People who build homes in areas prone to wild fires (or floods, for that matter) form associations to protect their own properties and to pay fire fighters to fight them. Home owners, and not taxpayers, would be paying for their protection. Our current system is yet another subsidy.

The best defense I’ve heard of the current system is this: People who build these homes are probably wealthy and therefore pay a lot of taxes, and therefore are entitled to a subsidy.

That’s the best defense I’ve heard. In other words, our current system of subsidized fire fighting for high risk homes is indefensible.

Well, we few Global Blast Furnace deniers are all but irrelevant now that the SCOTUS has decided that:

the [EPA] could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

[snip]

The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

Sure, we could parade the minority of scientists who agree with us in front of the court, but their status as a minority would guarantee a defeat, just as it would were this a legislative debate. If my defeat were a result of the latter, I may be chagrined with the outcome, but at least I could sleep knowing that we the people made the decision. Oh well, who needs Democracy when the world is at stake.

You’ve all heard about the investigations into the altering of scientific findings on global warming by the Bush administration. You’ve no doubt heard too about the decision to re-write the Endangered Species Act to make it easier to de-list certain species in certain parts of their range. The grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone were to be the first to be de-listed. Democrats in Congress have vowed to block this decision, and rightfully so, and deserve a hearty round of applause for doing so. One of the key elements of the ESA is the protection of critical habitat for a given species. This revision of the act was a blatant attempt to waltz right around the current law and in effect potentially open much of our public land to logging, mining and other development. It can and must be stopped.

It turns out that a high-ranking official over at Interior, a Bush appointee named Julie MacDonald, has been doing some creative editing of scientific findings by Fish & Wildlife biologists, as well as leaking non-public agency policy information to her friends in various industry groups. You know, make the science fit the policy decisions. It’s bad enough changing the findings of your own biologists even if you’re a biologist yourself. She’s not. She’s trained as a civil engineer. What the hell is she doing re-writing the findings of trained biologists? The cronyism displayed by this administration just keeps plunging to new depths. Oh well — you gotta take care of your friends I guess. On and on it goes…

More about it here and here and here.

Here is a great discovery, a new big cat! A rare newly discovered
Leopard! To think, these cats have been on earth for thousands of years, and we just found it. Wonder what other cool animals there is yet find?

Seems that a CAT can change its spots. I think you’ll find the following story from Reuter’s interesting. One other rather interesting fact is that with the clearing of the forests this probably will be argued and brought into political views on the practice of defoliation of our forests. The piece begins by saying:

GENEVA (Reuters) - Scientists have identified a leopard found on the South-East Asian islands of Borneo and Sumatra as a new species of great cat, the global nature protection body WWF reported on Thursday.

Genetic and skin tests on the creature, now dubbed the Bornean clouded leopard, or Neofelis diardi, have shown that it is almost as different from clouded leopards found on the Asian mainland as lions are from tigers, the Swiss-based WWF said…….

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070315/sc_nm/environment_leopard_dc

Honestly, is this what one should expect from one of our nations foremost environmental crusaders? (H/T Fark).

UPDATE:

Saturday’s headline was a teaser for today’s story, and I think it appropriate to expand a bit now that we have more information. First, let it be noted that the mine in question has a good record for generally not exceeding environmental regulations. Still:

Even Gore noted in his letter that, according to Scorecard, “pollution releases from the mine in 2002 placed it among the ‘dirtiest/worst facilities’ in the U.S.”

The letter was sent to the mining operation requesting that they work with an environmental group to ensure “that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices” a week after “The Tennessean’s Washington bureau posed questions to the former vice president about his involvement with the mine.” This is all well and good, especially for the new employees of the soon to be re-opened mine. I’m still left wondering about his willful involvement in the thing, as he could have sold it at any time (voiding the lease apparently would have involved legal action, and the Gore’s refused to comment on whether that was an avenue they pursued).

All this new information, however, does not change the gist of my original question.  Take a look at the pictures from the newspaper and tell me this is setting an environmental example.  I don’t believe it is, and considering his breathless proclamations over the years, you’d think he’d have fought a little harder for his so-called beliefs.

I spent more than half the day listening to the House Session. Montana Republicans disgust me. Absolutely and thoroughly disgust me. If the people that voted these idiots into office don’t or won’t speak up, I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to speak to a Republican again with out thinking of a swear word. The basic lack of common respect dished out today by the Republican House was appalling.

Then I come home to read that Trout Unlimited’s board has resolution proposed that would “prohibit TU involvement or participation in disputes that pit claims of public stream access against claims of private property rights.”

And then (yes, still) I read that Rove is more of a mastermind than anyone could ever have imagined, and both he and Gonzales contemplated firing all 93 U.S. attorneys en masse – and Gonzales was involved before he was even cofirmed!

There is no escape. What the hell is going on? Seriously?!