Featured stories in this issue…
A Disaster Brought To You by the Nation’s Leading Environmentalists
“Leading environmentalists” in the U.S. are urging Congress to try to curb global warming by creating a massive public-private bureaucracy to trade pollution permits amongst polluters, instead of simply taxing unwanted emissions.
The Great Carbon Bazaar
The carbon trading scheme built into the Kyoto Treaty — put there at the insistence of “leading environmentalists” in the U.S. — has led to major scams by polluters, which are exceedingly profitable but don’t reduce global warming.
Dear Governor Greenwash
The leading climate scientist in the U.S. lays out a bold plan for curbing global warming, starting with a ban on new coal plants. “Blocking a single coal-fired power plant is important in itself, and it may help lead to a tipping point by demonstrating that efficiency and renewable energies can carry the load.”
Farewell, Fair Weather
According to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, there have been more than four times as many weather- related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years. The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country.
New Study Says Carbon Nanotubes Might Be as Harmful as Asbestos
One of the most promising materials for the future of technology, carbon nanotubes, might be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled.
Op-Ed: The Working Wounded
“My colleagues and I were shocked to learn that an employer who breaks the nation’s worker-safety laws can be charged with a crime only if a worker dies. Even then, the crime is a lowly Class B misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of six months in prison.”
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A DISASTER BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE NATION’S LEADING ENVIRONMENTALISTS
[Rachel’s introduction: “Leading environmentalists” in the U.S. are urging Congress to try to curb global warming by creating a massive public-private bureaucracy to trade pollution permits amongst polluters, instead of simply taxing unwanted emissions.]
By Peter Montague
This week the U.S. Senate — arguably the most powerful 100 people on the planet — began a debate on a bill to curb global warming.
The N.Y. Times wrote June 3, “The debate, which could last all week, will force senators to take a stand on some of the most difficult, expensive and potentially life-altering questions the world will face in coming decades.”
In an editorial May 28, the New York Times had summarized the issue this way: “The scientific case for action, strong five years ago, is even more persuasive now. Authoritative assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among other studies, have left little doubt that the world is heating up, that man-made emissions are largely responsible and that swift action is necessary to avoid widespread environmental damage.”
The bill being debated in the Senate is known as Lieberman-Warner. It is being promoted aggressively by Democrat Barbara Boxer. The bill is co-sponsored by John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to the Times June 2, the details of the bill were crafted by a coalition of “some of the most powerful corporate leaders in America [who] have been meeting regularly with leading environmental groups in a conference room in downtown Washington for over two years…”
So this is a bill written by our “leading environmentalists.” The only “leading environmentalists” named by the Times are staff of the Natural Resources Defense Council, but we know Environmental Defense has had a heavy hand in this, too.
The bill would create an enormous new public/private bureaucracy to curb the emission of global warming gases, chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). The system is called “cap and trade.” The basic intent is not a bad one — to put a price on carbon, which is currently being dumped into the atmosphere for free.
There are two basic ways to put a price on carbon — simply tax it, or wrap it in a large bureaucracy devoted to “cap and trade.”
The “cap and trade” idea is to force carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters to purchase pollution permits, each of which is a legally-enforceable right to pollute the atmosphere with CO2 — but only up to a certain level (the “cap”). If polluters reduce their emissions below their permitted level, they can sell their unused permits to other polluters (the “trade”). Every once in a while the total “cap” gets lowered by the iron hand of government (at least in theory) and the “trade” part supposedly allows for super-efficient reductions in CO2 emissions: Those who can reduce their emissions cheaply will do so, and those who can’t will buy extra pollution permits in the open market (thus worsening pollution in some unfortunate communities, relative to more fortunate communities). Advocates of “cap and trade” say such a system will minimize the overall cost to the polluters while ratcheting down CO2 emissions rapidly enough to avert climate chaos. At least that’s the theory. (It is worth noting that the costs of pollution in the unfortunate communities [asthma, pulmonary disease, cancer, school days lost, emergency room visits, etc.] are kept “off the books” in all these “efficiency” calculations. To some “leading environmentalists” and their corporate-polluter partners, unfortunate communities have a value of zero.)
You won’t read about it in the New York Times, but there are serious mainstream critics of the “cap and trade” approach who say it is neither economically efficient nor workable. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’s own office of economic analysis — published its study three months ago concluding that:
** A carbon tax — not cap and trade — is the “most efficient” method to address global warming, both in limiting economic costs and for achieving environmental benefits.
What is a carbon tax?
A carbon tax is a tried-and-true way of putting a price on carbon emissions. Such a tax can be remarkably simple: you weigh the amount of carbon-containing fuel (coal, oil, or natural gas) as it comes out of the ground (or as it is comes off the ship), calculate the tax per ton of carbon, and collect the tax. End of story. The cost of the tax gets passed along to the purchaser via the market. Or, with considerably more effort, you could tax carbon directly at the point of purchase. Either way, you don’t have to measure anyone’s emissions — an exceedingly complex and costly procedure providing untold opportunities for thousands of polluters to fudge the data. The tax has an additional advantage: no one gains a legally enforceable “right to pollute.” With a tax, the nation’s electric utilities — and cement, aluminum and steel companies — wouldn’t ever be able to go to court to try to stop government from taking away their “right to pollute,” a property right they could claim to own because they purchased it with good money.
On its face, a cap and trade program is immensely complex. As Robert Samuelson writes in the June 9 issue of Newsweek, “The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade — a hugely complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases — is its very complexity.” Within all the complexity comes endless opportunity for shenanigans. (The BBC reported this week how the carbon trading scheme built into the Kyoto Treaty is being gamed by polluters at considerable profit to themselves but no benefit to planet Earth.)
In a cap and trade program, someone has to sell or auction (or give away free) the pollution permits each year. Someone else has to keep track of who has received how many permits and who has sold how many of their permits to whom. (Permits can be “banked” and used years later, so someone must pay close attention.) Someone else has to measure all the tens of thousands of permitted CO2 emissions to make sure they aren’t exceeding permitted levels. Buying and selling rights to pollute will create an enormous private bureaucracy — a trading exchange — supported by an army of bankers, lawyers, engineers, accountants, analysts, ad men, publicists, lobbyists, sales people, hucksters and camp followers. The first year of a “cap and trade” program is estimated to create a new “market” in pollution rights worth a $220 billion. A market worth $220 billion per year is as large as the market for computer processors. There’s real money to be made here by the clever and the unscrupulous. The British journal New Scientist reported in April that “what began as a niche market is now attracting major financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, and Barclays Capital…” plus JP Morgan Chase and others. In other words, the new carbon market is being created by the same people who created the ever-deepening mortgage lending disaster. Have they shown that they have society’s best interests at heart, or have they shown a cruel focus on making money, no matter the cost to others? It’s a fair question.
New Scientist summarized the root question this way: “As Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, puts it: climate change is ‘the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.’ The question now is whether capitalism is able to make amends. Can it provide a mechanism that rewards people for reducing their carbon emissions instead of increasing them? Or will it simply give big polluters a way of dodging their responsibilities?”
And New Scientist ends its devastating critique of “cap and trade” with a stark warning about the consequences of manipulation and deception within the carbon trading market: “With Enron, it was the shareholders who suffered. But if the atmosphere continues to be filled with greenhouse gases and the planet’s climate crashes as Enron did, no one will be spared.”
On May 4th, two attorneys working for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] wrote an “open letter to Congress” explaining why “cap and trade” can’t work. Attorneys Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel each have roughly two decades of experience in environmental enforcement, and Zabel has extensive experience with prior cap and trade programs run by EPA. Williams and Zabel told Congress that a “cap and trade” system “is an open invitation to fraud and would significantly delay reductions [in carbon emissions].” They went on to list (and document) half a dozen other reasons why a “cap and trade” program will be nothing more than a gift to the financial industry and the polluters but will not reduce CO2 emissions quickly enough to avert climate chaos.
So the U.S. Senate is debating how to curb global warming, but is restricting the debate to a single approach — “cap and trade” — an approach that was devised by the corporate polluters themselves, locked in a room for two years with their house environmentalists.
“Cap and trade” sets up a system that offers endless opportunities to game the system and make even more money by burning fossil fuels, while claiming to be curbing global warming fast enough to avert climate chaos. By the time the system has matured and we learn that it did not work, the billionaires created by the system will be living comfortably in the globally-warmed mountains of Switzerland while the rest of us are learning to deal with more and bigger Katrinas, creeping inundation of all the world’s coastal cities, and widespread famine from crop failures caused by drought.
This disaster is being created right before our eyes by the “leading environmentalists” in the United States. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Ross Gelbspan reports in the Boston Globe that at least one leading environmental organization in the U.S. — Environmental Defense — is planning to make money brokering carbon trades. Let’s point out for the record that many, many environmentalists in the U.S. oppose this dangerous, self-serving gamble with the future of the planet. Two collaborations of environmental justice advocates (originating on the East and West coasts of the U.S.) have taken unequivocal positions against carbon trading. Clearly, a national (and global) climate justice movement is emerging. Let’s hope it gathers momentum in time to stop the “leading environmentalists” in the U.S. from creating an irreversible catastrophe.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: BBC News ……………………………………..
June 5, 2008
THE GREAT CARBON BAZAAR
[Rachel’s introduction: The carbon trading scheme built into the Kyoto Treaty — put there at the insistence of “leading environmentalists” in the U.S. — has led to major scams by polluters, which are exceedingly profitable but don’t reduce global warming.]
By Mark Gregory, Business correspondent, BBC World Service, India
Evidence of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon credits [aka “pollution rights” or “allowances”] has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation.
The credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
The mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
But in some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been realised without external funding.
The BBC World Service investigation found examples of projects in India where this appeared to be the case.
Arguably, this defeats the whole point of the CDM scheme, set up under the Kyoto climate change protocol, as these projects are getting money for nothing.
The findings reinforce doubts that the CDM is leading to real emission cuts, which is not good news for the effort to combat climate change.
And in one case a company is earning truly staggering sums of money from the carbon credits it is receiving — perhaps as much as $500 million over a period of 10 years — for a project it says it would have carried out without the incentive of the CDM.
Not watertight
The man in ultimate charge of running the Clean Development Mechanism insists it is fundamentally sound.
“We’ve got a procedure that works,” says Yvo De Boer, the top official at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
He is referring to the elaborate registration process projects must go through to qualify for carbon credits from the CDM.
But even Mr De Boer accepts the system is not perfect.
“At the end of the day it’s always a matter of judgement,” he says.
“And no, it’s not watertight.”
Flawed system
In order to receive carbon credits from the CDM, projects are supposed to demonstrate that they will lead to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that are “additional” to what would have happened without the availability of credits.
This concept of “additionality” is crucial to the credibility of the mechanism because of the way the system works.
The buyers of CDM credits are companies in developed nations, mostly in Europe, who use them to offset their own emissions.
They are allowed to count the carbon credits towards targets they would otherwise have to meet by cutting emissions at their own factories and offices, which is usually much more expensive.
The system is intended to give western firms a low cost way of achieving emission targets while at the same time getting businesses in developing nations involved in tackling climate change.
But it only works if the carbon credits generated by projects in developing nations really do represent genuine emission cuts.
Would have done it anyway
Three projects in India were investigated to see if the “additionality” test has been met.
One case involved the installation of a biomass generator to provide electricity at a rice milling plant in the state of Uttar Pradesh in Northern India.
KRBL, India’s largest exporter of Basmati rice, spent $5m on the generator, which replaced a less climate friendly diesel powered system.
The generator runs on rice husks, a renewable energy source. The husks are a waste material from the rice milling process.
The company has almost completed the registration procedure and is set to receive carbon credits from the CDM worth several hundred thousand dollars a year.
Yet, when asked whether the carbon credits were important for the company’s decision to install the biomass generator, Manoj Saxena, a senior manager at the plant, responded “not really” and confirmed that it would have done the project anyway, even without the CDM funds.
“[The] numbers are more favourable for us because of the CDM,” he acknowledged.
He was then asked whether the company would take the money if the authorities of the CDM were silly enough to give it a million dollars extra for it, to which he replied: “Yes, definitely. Why not?”
KRBL’s rice husk driven generator is unquestionably a useful project from an environmental point of view, but the evidence gathered by the BBC World Service investigation suggests it would have been installed anyway without financial help from carbon credits.
Massive windfall
Indian chemical company SRF is also receiving substantial numbers of CDM carbon credits for eliminating an obscure industrial waste product known as HFC23, a highly potent greenhouse gas.
HFC23 is a by-product of manufacturing refrigerant gases used to cool fridges and air conditioners.
It is nearly 12,000 times as toxic as carbon dioxide in its climate impact if it enters the atmosphere.
But getting rid of HFC23 is quite easy and relatively cheap.
The solution is to burn it off in an incinerator.
SRF has installed an incinerator for burning off HFC23 at its plant in Rajasthan.
The project has been registered with the CDM and is receiving up to 3.8 million carbon credits a year.
These are currently worth $50m to $60m a year.
SRF is likely to receive the credits for a period of about 10 years, so it is in line for a total windfall in the region of more than $500m, a gigantic sum for a smallish chemical plant located in rural India.
The incentives work
The company will not say what it cost to install the incinerator, but the figure is far les than the value of the credits obtained.
The number of carbon credits awarded to SRF and other similar firms for dealing with HFC23 is linked to its theoretical climate potency.
The actual cost of eliminating the gas is not taken into account.
The UN’s Mr De Boer, the man in charge of the Clean Development Mechanism, defends the huge payouts made to companies like SRF.
“I’m happy that a very potent greenhouse gas is being removed,” he says.
“I’m very happy that the Kyoto protocol has created a market mechanism that makes it interesting for companies to do that, because evidence shows us that in the absence of the CDM that greenhouse gas was not being destroyed.
“There was no incentive to destroy that greenhouse gas apart from the CDM”
His argument is that while it may have been expensive, at least the CDM is responsible for getting rid of a particularly nasty greenhouse gas.
But is this true? Did companies really need the CDM to take action?
During a tour of the plant at SRF’s factory in Rajasthan, the company’s official spokesman, Mukund Trivedy, revealed that “we would have done it anyway”. He was then asked to confirm whether the project would have been carried out even if the CDM scheme hadn’t been set up.
“That’s right,” he responded.
Which begs the question; if they were going to eliminate HFC23 emissions themselves anyway, why give them carbon credits worth several hundred million dollars?
Not solving the problem
The third company investigated by BBC World Service was a large hydro scheme in the Northern Indian state of Himalchal Pradesh.
There were arguments on both sides as whether the project genuinely deserved to qualify for carbon credits.
The CDM operates on a massive scale. More than 1,000 projects have already qualified for carbon credits.
A further 3,000 projects have applied.
Trade in CDM carbon credits is running at some $10bn a year.
That is a welcome flow of resources from the developed to the developing world.
But it is far from clear that the trade in credits is contributing much to tackling global warming.
Mark Gregory’s investigation into carbon trading is broadcast on One Planet on BBC World Service radio at various times on Thursday 5 June. UK listeners can hear it on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm that same evening, entitled The Great Carbon Bazaar.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Gristmill Blog ………………………………..
May 29, 2008
DEAR GOVERNOR GREENWASH
[Rachel’s introduction: The leading climate scientist in the U.S. lays out a bold plan for curbing global warming, starting with a ban on new coal plants. “Blocking a single coal-fired power plant is important in itself, and it may help lead to a tipping point by demonstrating that efficiency and renewable energies can carry the load.”]
By James Hansen
My recent experience with governors raises a question about whether this is an effective way to communicate about climate change. (Apologies for the length — you may skip the three tales and go to the bottom line.)
Dear Governor Pawlenty [PDF]
Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty presides over a population that appreciates nature. Explorer Will Steger has done a marvelous job of informing the public there about climate change in the Arctic, the threat of climate change to species and indigenous people, and the relevance of climate change to Minnesota. Early actions made it appear that Minnesota would be a leader, defining energy policies and directions that would be a great example for other states.
Specifically (get this!), in spring 2007 Minnesota passed and Gov. Pawlenty signed a law called the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring 25 percent renewable energy by 2025 and a 1.5 percent per year improvement in energy efficiency.
Some people used this to help paint Gov. Pawlenty green, second in greenness only to Arnold Schwarzenegger among Republican governors. Pawlenty, according to the Washington Post, is at the top of the list of candidates to be John McCain’s running mate. Coincidentally, the Republican convention will be in Minnesota in September. But … read on.
I wrote a letter to Gov. Pawlenty, to provide information similar to that in my testimony [PDF] to the Iowa Public Utility Commission regarding the Marshalltown plant and my letters to leaders such as the British Prime Minister [PDF]. For some reason, despite signing the Next Generation Energy Act, Gov. Pawlenty would not take a position against a new large coal-fired power plant, Big Stone II (located in South Dakota but supplying energy to Minnesota). Something didn’t add up.
Junior high school mathematics tells us that a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025 and a 1.5 percent/year improvement in energy efficiency together eliminate the need for new coal-fired power plants. Could it be that there was no real expectation of pursuing those goals?
Big Stone II, from the coal industry perspective, is doubly beneficial: It increases sales and it is a dagger in the chest of renewable energies. In a finite market, renewables can only take off, and reduce their unit costs, by increasing in scale. New coal plants — if they are built — will serve to keep clean energies as bit players in the energy market for decades to come.
But perhaps Gov. Pawlenty was just confused. He may not realize the significance of a whopping big coal plant (it takes about 100 rail cars per day to feed one of those suckers). He may not realize that coal trains are death trains for uncountable species. He may not realize the health impacts of mercury and other coal pollutants, and the costs of pollutants for Minnesota citizens. So I dutifully wrote the above letter to the governor. Fossil fuel facts therein make clear the urgency of a moratorium on coal-fired power, if we are to avoid dangerous climate tipping points that would spell disasters for our children and grandchildren.
Gov. Pawlenty’s response, relayed by his spokesman, Brian McClung: “Climate change is an issue that is national and international in scope and cannot be solved by one state. In addition, we must safeguard jobs and our economy as we seek to transition to cleaner sources of energy.” Huh? Sounds familiar. Sounds like Washington. Pass the buck.
Bottom line: the governor did not come out against Big Stone II. Citizens, the courts, may yet stop Big Stone II, but Gov. Pawlenty, it seems, will not.
Will McCain choose Pawlenty as a running mate? Would McCain risk “Governor Greenwash,” “Governor Hogwash” posters? Naw, I don’t think so. We need real leadership.
I received appeals to help illuminate the situation in Nevada, mostly from people suffering from local coal pollution. It is physically impossible to respond to every request. But Nevada’s plans are so egregiously bad as to demand a spotlight. When I realized that I was to receive the Nevada Medal, to be presented by the governor, I could not pass up the chance to communicate (as it turns out, he was obviously not on the committee selecting the medal winner).
My letter was (you can judge for yourself) friendly, polite, and helpful, presenting a clear explanation of why three new coal plants that he was supporting were not in the best interests of Nevada, the nation, or the Earth. Nevada is a potential goldmine for renewable energy — solar, wind, geothermal. Solar thermal power alone, using just a tiny fraction of the desert area in the Southwest United States, could supply most of the electric power for the entire United States, eliminating the need for coal-fired power. If the state played it smart, they would become wealthy by exporting clean carbon-free energy to California and elsewhere.
The primary function of the proposed new coal-fired power plants in Nevada, as elsewhere, seems to be as a dagger in the chest of renewable energies, by removing the need for them, keeping renewables in their place as boutique, inconsequential competitors. In addition, the coal plants eliminate any need to restructure utility regulations such that utilities could make more money by encouraging energy efficiency, rather than by selling more energy.
The only response from the governor’s office was an angry, early-AM call to the Desert Research Institute, the host for my visit to Nevada. Fortunately, they could honestly reply that they had no involvement in the letter (indeed, when I had queried their scientists, they told me not to waste my time, that it was a hopeless case). Perhaps the annoyance was that I provided copies of my letter to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission and the Nevada Climate Change Task Force.
Or the fact that, in ending my letter on an optimistic note, I pointed out that young people were in the process of organizing to oppose fossil interests. These enthusiastic vocal groups, such as Energy Action, League of Young Voters, Rock the Vote, and several other youth civic groups had identified Nevada as a principal state for voter outreach programs. I noted that youth are not fooled by “green” advertisements or tokenism in political actions, but I tried to be positive: “Leaders who put our nation on a course to carbon-free energy, allowing us to be good stewards of creation, of our planet, will find a strongly supportive public.”
Nevertheless, the governor did not show up for dinner, which, instead, was hosted in the governor’s mansion by First Lady Dawn Gibbons. The first lady was a superb host, knowledgeable about energy and climate, concerned about public welfare and Nevada’s future, and especially interested in fairness to and the welfare of our children and grandchildren.
Later I learned that the first couple were in divorce proceedings, and that there was an attempt to have the first lady removed from the governor’s mansion. Even though firearms are common in Nevada, I suppose a “Calamity Jane” takeover is unrealistic. Yet, just perhaps, the citizens of Nevada might consider drafting the first lady, an experienced former Nevada legislator, to be the future governor. And thus, just perhaps, Nevada could provide the social tipping point, the change of direction that leads us from fossil addiction to a more prosperous future, with energy independence, nature preservation, and intergenerational equity.
Dear Governor Kaine [PDF]
This letter to Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was also submitted as an op-ed to the Washington Post, but not published. The Office of the Governor sent a letter in response, included above.
My letter suggests that Gov. Kaine could save rate-payers money while helping lead the nation to a cleaner energy future, relying more on energy efficiency and renewable energies. His reply, which may be mostly a form letter, states that the U.S. Department of Energy recognizes the planned Virginia City Energy Center as “clean coal technology. The facility would be capable of using waste coal piles from the coalfield region of Virginia as fuel, which could help reduce the impact of undesirable runoff into Virginia streams.”
This stupefying rationale of burning waste coal to clean the environment is but one cause for concern. The governor also notes his Energy Plan “goal” of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 30 percent “below what they otherwise would be” in 2025. Oh, boy — reduce “energy intensity” (if we reduce our overeating, we will get fatter, but not as fat as we would have been otherwise). Another quote: “After long and careful consideration, the governor and I have acknowledged that global warming is a problem caused, largely, though not exclusively, by human activity …”
Gov. Kaine was an early endorser of Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, and is said to be on the short list of vice presidential candidates. Heaven forefend!
Bottom line:
(1) Urgency of coal moratorium
A successful strategy to avoid climate calamity must start with a moratorium, and eventual phaseout, of coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2. Other actions are needed, including a carbon price that encourages transition to fuels of the future, discourages scrounging for every last drop of oil, and stymies budding efforts to squeeze oil from the dirtiest fossil deposits (tar shale and its ilk). Also, improved agricultural and forestry practices will be needed to draw atmospheric CO2 down. But the urgent, essential action is a coal moratorium.
Side benefits of phasing out coal emissions, for human health and the environment, are so great that it will be feasible to spread a no- dirty-coal energy strategy worldwide once it is started. The West must initiate the moratorium, because the West is responsible for most of the excess CO2 in the air today. We have the potential for an immediate moratorium, and the West has much to gain from early adoption and technology refinement.
Energy experts agree that efficiency and renewable energies can handle near-term needs for energy growth in the United States. New coal plants are being built only because coal is cheap (as long as it receives government subsidies and is not forced to pay for environmental and health damages), because utilities make more money if they sell more energy, and because the political clout of King Coal stymies adoption of national energy policies in the public interest.
(2) Leadership
Political leaders in both parties do not yet appreciate fundamental data such as the carbon content of individual fossil fuels. It is not rocket science. We cannot prevent use of easily minable reserves of oil or capture tailpipe emissions. But oil reserves are finite, prices are rising, and emissions will peak and decline. The larger CO2 source, the one we must cut off at the pass, is coal (and unconventional fossil fuels, squeezing of oil from tar shale and its ilk).
Responses from these three states failed to identify needed leadership. Minnesotans tell me that Pawlenty placed constraints on power plants, making it unlikely that Big Stone II will be built, but he could not go further without offending neighboring governors of his own party. We can reserve judgment in this case, but solution of the climate problem can only be obtained with an unambiguous renunciation of coal except where CO2 emissions are captured and sequestered.
Lest you get discouraged, let me point out two examples of stellar leadership. Last year Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) responded to a similar plea with force and clarity — he cancelled Florida’s plans for new coal-fired power plants. And well he may have — most of Florida is as flat as a pancake up to the ocean’s edge.
And there is the Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius (D), perhaps the most courageous of all — living in a lion’s pit of well-oiled coal-fired legislators, she came out firmly against new coal-fired power plants on the grounds that they will push climate past the tipping point and destroy the future of our children and grandchildren! In her final term as governor, she is a potential candidate for vice president or for senator to replace retiring Sam Brownback.
A recent New York Times editorial on global warming concluded:
“Above all, it will require determined and courageous leadership from a president capable of conveying hard truths and asking a lot of the country. Assuming that Mr. McCain and the two Democratic candidates mean what they say, on this issue at least, we seem assured of such a president.”
“Assuming they mean what they say” is the crux of the matter. How can you determine if they possess understanding and “courageous leadership”? Ask them point blank if they support an immediate moratorium on new dirty-coal power plants and phase-out of existing dirty-coal power plants (none of them has, as yet). Ask publicly and broadcast the response. Because, if they are not ready and willing to act, perusal of fossil carbon reservoirs and junior high school mathematics will together show that Yogi Berra was right: “You can’t get there from here.”
(3) Public support: Tax and dividend
Last week, the Energy Secretary for the United States, before the House of Representatives, answering questions about global warming and energy policy, provided a response that was so ignorant and foolish as to suggest that he has been living on another planet or is stone deaf to scientific information. He said that the appropriate policy response to climate change is for the government to open up more public land for mining, to open off-shore areas for drilling, to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and to encourage extraction of oil from tar shale.
The danger is that such egregiously bad policy — bad for all but the short-term benefit of special interests — might be packaged to sound logical to the public. This danger will increase when a rising carbon price, essential for solving the climate problem, is instituted. For a carbon price to be effective it must perforce be large enough to cause a big impact on the public — otherwise it will not help bring about consumer changes that are needed to reduce emissions fast enough. But it must be implemented with care and foresight.
For this reason I strongly favor a “tax and dividend” approach. The entire carbon tax should be given back to the public, an equal amount to each person. No bureaucracy is needed to figure this out. If an early carbon tax averages say $1200 per person (it can be collected in various ways — at the well-head, carbon emission permit auctions, etc.) a monthly $100 deposit can be made automatically in everyone’s bank account.
Although energy prices will rise, you can bet your bottom dollar that lower and middle income people will figure out how to reduce energy use enough that, overall, they come out ahead. And in doing so, moving to more energy-efficient products, they will spur economic activity and create jobs. The tax-and-dividend approach not only minimizes public backlash against climate and energy policies, it also has the characteristics needed to make those policies work.
Footnote: I suggest limiting the number of dividends to four per family. Climate scientists have no special expertise related to the family planning issue, but common sense dictates against a policy that stimulates population growth.
(4) Dilemma
Inability to influence governors, and the finite number of hours in a day, raises a question about the effectiveness of opposing individual power plants. The dramatic change of emissions that is needed requires national policy changes, and that requires public pressure and/or pressure from enlightened “captains of industry.” Are there better ways to inform those players?
On the other hand, a single large coal-fired power plant burns about 100 rail cars of coal in a day, each with about 100 tons of coal. Multiply this by about 3 to get the mass of CO2 produced and by the number of days in 50-75 years, the typical expected lifetime of a power plant. Thus construction of a single coal-fired power plant obviates actions by millions of people to reduce their emissions. Blocking a single coal-fired power plant is important in itself, and it may help lead to a tipping point by demonstrating that efficiency and renewable energies can carry the load.
Copyright 2008. Grist Magazine, Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: New York Times ……………………………….
May 31, 2008
FAREWELL, FAIR WEATHER
[Rachel’s introduction: According to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, there have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years. The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country.]
By Charles M. Blow, N.Y. Times columnist
We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather.
According to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, there have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years. The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country.
Just this month, a swarm of tornadoes shredded the central states. California and Florida have been scorched by wildfires, and a crippling drought in the Southeast has forced Georgia to authorize plans for new reservoirs.
Who do we have to thank for all this? Probably ourselves.
Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued reports concluding that “human influences” (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have “more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States issued Thursday (years late and under court order) reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation… .”
This increase is deadly and disruptive — and could become economically unbearable.
According to the National Hurricane Center, 10 of the 30 costliest American hurricanes have struck since 2000, even after adjusting the figures for inflation and the cost of construction.
In 2005, the year of Hurricane Katrina, the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.
And, a recent report in The Denver Post said the Forest Service plans to spend 45 percent, or $1.9 billion, of its budget this year fighting forest fires.
This surge in disasters and attendant costs is yet another reason we need to declare a coordinated war on climate change akin to the wars on drugs and terror. It’s a matter of national security.
By the way, hurricane season begins Sunday [June 1].
Charles Blow’s column will appear on alternate Saturdays. E-mail: chblow@nytimes.com.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: San Francisco Chronicle ………………………..
May 20, 2008
NEW STUDY SAYS CARBON NANOTUBES MIGHT BE AS HARMFUL AS ASBESTOS
[Rachel’s introduction: One of the most promising materials for the future of technology, carbon nanotubes, might be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled.]
By Ann Fernholm
SAN FRANCISCO — One of the most promising materials for the future of technology, carbon nanotubes, might be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled, according to a new study published today in the scientific journal Nature Nanotechnology.
Animal studies indicate that these long and very thin carbon molecules could cause a cancer called mesothelioma in the lining of the lungs.
“The problem of asbestos was caused when it was released into the air, if it was handled inappropriately or incorrectly. Carbon nanotubes could do the same. With this information we should assume the worst, we should think of them as asbestos. But more research might relax that point of view,” said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington and one of the authors of the study.
Carbon nanotubes, 10,000 times thinner than a human hair, are one of the materials that many scientists believe will be used to build tiny electronics. In 2001, IBM made an array of transistors out of carbon nanotubes. In 2004, General Electric made a carbon nanotube diode, and last year, UC Berkeley scientists used single carbon nanotubes to create the world’s smallest radio.
Themost widespread application today is in plastic materials reinforced by carbon nanotubes. Stronger than steel but light as plastic, carbon nanotubes are highly attractive to manufacturers of everything from sporting goods to airplanes. There already are tennis rackets, baseball bats and bicycle frames strengthened by carbon nanotubes available on the market.
“I would be very surprised if it is dangerous to use, let us say, a tennis racket or baseball bat containing carbon nanotubes. But I do not think it is OK to tell people that we think it is safe — we’ve got to have evidence,” Maynard said.
He said that such products should go through a number of tests investigating, for example, what happens when they break or when the surface is rubbed against the ground. He also wonders what happens when the products are disposed of.
“Is there a chance that the nanotubes will enter the environment?” Maynard said.
The main concern, however, is people processing carbon nanotubes and manufacturing the materials containing them.
The study presented in Nature Nanotechnology used an animal model developed in the 80s to study the development of mesothelioma, which can be caused by asbestos exposure. In this model, the nanotubes were injected into the abdominal cavity of mice, which is lined by the same kind of tissue as the human lung, and which is a sensitive predictor of mesothelioma. After one week, there was an inflammatory response.
“This is a very important study; it is very well done. It shows that you do get an inflammation that is similar to asbestosis. What is not known yet is the long term effect,” said Vincent Castranova, involved in the nanotoxicology research at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
It is also uncertain how this experimental model for mesothelioma translates into reality. Scientists do not know under which circumstances these long carbon nanotubes will form a breathable dust, or if this dust will work its way into the lung.
“Here we run out of information,” Maynard said.
Meanwhile, Castranova recommends people working with carbon nanotubes follow NIOSH guidelines for working with engineered nanomaterials, which involve the use of respirators and special filters to clean the air.
E-mail Ann Fernholm at afernholm@sfchronicle.com.
Copyright 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The New York Times (A23) ………………………
May 27, 2008
OP-ED: THE WORKING WOUNDED
[Rachel’s introduction: “My colleagues and I were shocked to learn that an employer who breaks the nation’s worker-safety laws can be charged with a crime only if a worker dies. Even then, the crime is a lowly Class B misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of six months in prison.”]
By David M. Uhlmann.
DATELINE: Ann Arbor, Mich.
ON a hot August morning in 1996, Scott Dominguez reported to work at Evergreen Resources, a small fertilizer manufacturing plant in his hometown, Soda Springs, Idaho. The workday began like any other, with gruff commands barked out by the owner of the company, Allan Elias, who was a Wharton graduate, a lawyer and one of the most notorious violators of environmental and worker-safety laws in the state.
Mr. Elias wanted his workers to clean out a 25,000-gallon tank that contained cyanide waste. He refused to test the air or the waste inside the tank. He ignored the pleas of his workers for safety equipment. When the workers complained of sore throats and difficulty breathing, Mr. Elias told them to finish the job or find work somewhere else.
Mr. Dominguez, a 20-year-old high school graduate, wanted to keep his job. Wearing just jeans and a T-shirt, he used a ladder to descend into the tank. Two hours later, covered in sludge and barely breathing, he was removed from the tank, a victim of cyanide poisoning at the hands of a ruthless employer who would blame his “stupid and lazy” employees for the incident.
Mr. Dominguez suffered severe and permanent brain damage. He now has the rigid body movement and stammering speech found in patients with Parkinson’s disease.
The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of Evergreen Resources. I was one of the lead prosecutors on the case. We quickly discovered that we had a major problem.
Mr. Elias did not commit a crime under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is the primary federal worker-safety law in the United States. Why not? Because Mr. Dominguez did not die.
My colleagues and I were shocked to learn that an employer who breaks the nation’s worker-safety laws can be charged with a crime only if a worker dies. Even then, the crime is a lowly Class B misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of six months in prison. (About 6,000 workers are killed on the job each year, many in cases where the deaths could have been prevented if their employers followed the law.) Employers who maim their workers face, at worst, a maximum civil penalty of $70,000 for each violation.
We ended up prosecuting Mr. Elias for environmental crimes, and he was sentenced to 17 years in prison. I later became chief of the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section, and we started an initiative — based on this case and others like it — to seek justice when workers were seriously injured or killed during environmental crimes. We prosecuted some of the largest companies in America. But in cases where no environmental crimes were committed, we often could not prosecute.
Employers rarely face criminal prosecution under the worker-safety laws. In the 38 years since Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act, only 68 criminal cases have been prosecuted, or less than two per year, with defendants serving a total of just 42 months in jail. During that same time, approximately 341,000 people have died at work, according to data compiled from the National Safety Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
It is long past time for Congress to change the law. First, Congress should amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to make it a crime for an employer to commit violations that cause serious injury to workers or that knowingly place workers at risk of death or serious injury. Whether good fortune intervenes and prevents harm to workers should not determine whether an employer commits a crime.
Congress should make it a felony to commit a criminal violation of the worker-safety laws, and the penalties for lawbreakers should be stiffened. The maximum sentence ought to be measured in years, not months.
Congress also should change the worker-safety laws so that ignorance of the law is no longer a defense. Employers have a duty to know their responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Finally, Congress should make clear who can be prosecuted. Some courts have held that prosecution is limited to companies and their owners. Supervisors who order workers to break the law, as well as responsible corporate officers who fail to stop violations that they know are occurring, should also be held criminally responsible, just as they are under most other federal laws.
Most companies care about protecting their workers. But without a serious threat of criminal enforcement, more workers will be put at risk by companies that put profits before safety.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel’s Democracy & Health News highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren’t the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, “Who gets to decide?” And, “How DO the few control the many, and what might be done about it?”
Rachel’s Democracy and Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
Editors:
Peter Montague – peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague – tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel’s Democracy & Health News send a blank Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net
In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
dhn@rachel.org