The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined

The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009, and extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year.

Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010 with India and China’s increased use of coal contributing to those emission increases.  And while broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to the people of those countries, doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report on global warming, using different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution.  At that time the IPCC said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution.  The latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, most climate scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative. The IPCC’s worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.

One bright spot is the developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement.

In 1990, developed countries produced about 60 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, now it’s probably less than 50 percent.  The real challenge will be to get buy in from the developing world.  If we don’t, the problem will only get worse . . . and well . . . see yesterday’s blog.

Many lakes and reservoirs across the state are badly depleted after more than a month of 100-degree temperatures and less than 1 inch of rain. The worst-off communities are already trying to run pipes to distant water, drilling emergency wells bringing on systems that turn waste water into tap water and banning water use for virtually anything beyond drinking, bathing and keeping businesses working.

Worst-case scenarios have a few towns running out of water in a matter of months.  Although Texas cities have gone bone-dry before —Throckmorton in 2000 — the nearly 500 water systems statewide now under some mandatory restrictions appear unprecedented.

Prayer gatherings for rain have been held across the state, the most notable being called by Governor Rick Perry in July.  So far, these measures have not brought even the promise of rain for most of us.

In the town of Llano, near Austin, which went to Stage 5 water restrictions back around the 4^th of July weekend, officials have made a contingency plan to roll trucks of bottled water into town if rain doesn’t start to replenish the water supply, and workers are drilling test wells into parched, rock-like soil. Water restrictions are in effect in unprecedented in places like Midland, where barely a half-inch of rain has fallen since October of 2010.

If La Nina conditions return this fall, which the Climate Prediction Center says is likely, Texas is unlikely to see any significant relief from this drought well into next year.

As I sit at my desk with the sun pouring through the window heating everything around me, knowing that just outside the front door it is still a soil scorching 103 degrees F, I think that it may be time to raise the specter of (duhn-duhn-duhhhhhhn) CLIMATE CHANGE.  Even if Governor Perry is traveling around the country telling everyone that scientists have cooked up the data on global warming for the cash, the numbers here in Texas seem to be refuting his claim and you can expect to see us blogging about it soon.

Related articles

• If it started raining today, how much would we need to end this drought? (texasvox.org)

Three Texas youth and one young adult filed for judicial review today of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) denial of their petition to force action on climate change. Specifically, the rulemaking petition requests TCEQ to require reductions in statewide carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels consistent with what current scientific analysis deems necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.

“TCEQ and the Texas government have failed to live up to their responsibility to protect my future and take the urgent action needed to halt climate change,” said 15 year-old plaintiff, Eamon Umphress. “My generation will be hurt the most by climate change, but instead of taking action, Texas is putting short-term profits for corporations above a livable planet for me and future generations.”

As part of the iMatter Campaign, a petition was filed on May 5^th in conjunction with legal actions in 47 other states, the District of Columbia, and against the federal government on behalf of youth to compel reductions of CO₂ emissions in an effort to counter the negative impacts of climate change that these youth expect to manifest in their lifetime.

The petition relies upon the long established legal principle of the Public Trust Doctrine that requires all branches of the government to protect and maintain certain shared resources fundamental for human health and survival. Science, not politics, defines the fiduciary obligation that the government, as the trustee, must fulfill on behalf of the beneficiary—the public.

“Dr. James Hansen, a prominent and widely respected climate scientist, has warned that our window of opportunity is quickly closing to take serious action to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office. “Since 1991, TCEQ has had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases but has lacked the political and moral will to do so. The moral failure of the leadership of Texas, particularly Governor Perry and TCEQ Commissioner Shaw, is shameful and betrays future generations. We urge the courts and TCEQ to follow the science and take action to protect the climate and future generations by reducing CO₂ emissions now.”

“The Public Trust Doctrine requires TCEQ, as a trustee, to protect and preserve vital natural resources, including the atmosphere, for both present and future generations of Texans,” said Adam Abrams, an attorney with the Texas Environmental Law Center. “TCEQ’s fiduciary duties as trustee of the public trust cannot be disclaimed.”

TCEQ’s decision states that any reduction in CO₂ emissions will not impact the global distribution of these gases in the atmosphere. “But as the largest emitter in the United States, reductions in Texas can make a difference in overall reductions,” said Dr. Neil Carman, Clean Air Director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “Every ton of carbon contributes to global warming, and fewer emissions means less heating in the pipeline and a better chance of reversing Earth’s current energy imbalance.”

“Texas is not only the largest contributor of greenhouse gases in the U.S., the state is also reeling from severe impacts of climate change right now—namely heat waves, droughts, and wildfires,” said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas. “The U.S. Global Change Research Program states in its 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, that with rising high temperatures, droughts and heat waves will become more frequent and severe, and water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce. Just last month, the federal Department of Agriculture declared 213 counties in Texas disaster areas, due to ‘one of the worst droughts in more than a century.’” Texas has “sustained excessive heat, high winds and wildfires that burned hundreds of thousands of acres,” and many farmers and ranchers “have lost their crops due to the devastation caused by the drought and wildfires,” USDA stated in its press release. “We call on Texas government officials to take these impacts seriously and act now to reduce CO₂ emissions from the burning of fossil fuels,” stated Metzger.

To protect Earth’s natural systems, the best available science shows that average global surface heating must not exceed 1° C and concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ must decline to less than 350 ppm this century. We are currently at around 390 ppm. To accomplish this reduction, Dr. Hansen and other renowned scientists conclude that global CO₂ emissions need to peak in 2012 and decline by 6% per year starting in 2013. The rulemaking petition seeks a rule that would require a reduction of statewide CO₂ emissions at these levels. Click here to read Dr. Hansen’s recent paper.

“The Texas government continually claims that any kind of regulation on CO₂ is a regulation that would hurt business and the economy. This does not have to be the case,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The shift to an economy based on energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of fossil fuels is not only technically but economically feasible, and with the right policies in place, our economy could flourish in new green jobs from this shift. Wind energy is comparable in price to coal and the cost of solar is falling, as San Antonio’s recent investment in a 400-megawatt solar project demonstrates. While touting the possible negative impacts on the economy that reductions in CO₂ emissions could have, Texas consistently fails to consider the negative economic impacts of climate change—such as the increased weather extremes of heat waves, drought, and hurricanes—already felt by many Texans.”

“We have a moral duty to provide our children and our children’s children with a livable planet,” said Brigid Shea, mother of 15 year-old plaintiff, Eamon Umphress, and former Austin City Council member. “The Texas government must live up to its responsibility to protect and preserve our planet and our atmosphere. We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and live as if our children’s future matters.”

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Our Children’s Trust is a nonprofit focused on protecting earth’s natural systems for current and future generations. We are here to empower and support youth as they stand up for their lawful inheritance: a healthy planet. We are mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers. We are adults, part of the ruling generation, and we care about the future of our children—and their children’s children. www.ourchildrenstrust.org/

iMatter is a youth-led campaign of the nonprofit group, Kids vs Global Warming, that is focused on mobilizing and empowering youth to lead the way to a sustainable and just world. We are teens and moms and young activists committed to raising the voices of the youngest generation to issue a wake-up call to live, lead and govern as if our future matters. www.imattermarch.org/

In a Stanford University report researches have found that “candidates running for office can gain votes by taking green positions and might lose votes by expressing skepticism about climate change.” A study entitled “The Impact of Candidates’ Statements about Climate Change on Electoral Success in 2010: Experimental Evidences,” reveals that taking a “green” position on global warming attracts votes from Democrats and Independents, while expressing skepticism about the warmist theory alienates those same voters. On the Republican side there was no significant impact either way, so it looks like Perry intends to look to his base.

Drought plagued cotton field in Lubbock, Texas just two weeks ago - photo by Betsy Blaney, AP

More than half the state of Texas is now gripped by the most extreme level of drought measured by climatologists and as I look out my window at the lush green strip of lawn in front of the office building across the street, I wonder how long they will be able to keep watering to maintain that look.

A report released Thursday by national climate experts shows that Texas saw the highest levels of drought — rated as “exceptional” — jump from 43.97 percent of the state to 50.65 percent of the state.  Folks living in these regions of the state are experiencing thousands of wildfires, dried up grazing land needed for cattle, and the loss of thousands of acres of wheat and other crops.

It has been estimated that Texas farmers and ranchers have already lost $1.5 billion in revenues this year, and officials say if the drought continues into June, losses will top $4 billion, making it the costliest season on record, impacting the entire nation since Texas is the nation’s second largest agriculture producer .

Texas could be well on its way to breaking the record of 2006 as we contemplate this May’s estimated rainfall totals, which were only about 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 inches of rain across the state.  This would make the March-May spring period the driest on record once the totals are confirmed.

Texas has a long history with droughts,  but it is still early and we will have to wait a bit to determine how this year ranks in the history of Texas droughts, but it is not looking good and so far the governor’s call for prayer for rain has yet to be answered.

The persistent drought in the south comes even as too much rain has been falling to the north with flooding prompting wide-spread evacuations, and tornadoes spawning as disturbances move through from Dallas north and eastward, devastating communities in their wake.  How much weather related devastation do we have to endure before our governments begin to seriously consider means to mitigate the effects of climate change?

My favorite quote so far comes from this Time article:

If there is a war on coal, environmental forces may have just won the Battle of Midway.

You can also read more about this accord at The New York Times.

For those of you around Texas and throughout the United States, take this to heart: we are winning the fight against coal and we will continue to win as long as we keep up the pressure. Our best thoughts go out to all the folks gathered at Power Shift 2011 (going on all weekend) – you all have something to celebrate tonight!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

A megawatt of electricity from a natural gas power plant will generally produce anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO2, compared to a megawatt from a coal plant.  And since coal plants have rightfully been targeted as the biggest climate polluters the natural gas folks have been positioning themselves as the cheaper, cleaner alternative.

Not so fast, since methane, the main component of natural gas, is also a greenhouse gas that the EPA rates as having 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of CO2.  Since so much methane is released into the atmosphere during the fracking and drilling process, Howarth’s study questions that assumption, implying the climate benefits are minimal, if they even exist.  From The Hill:

More broadly, many gas supporters see domestic reserves as a “bridge” fuel while alternative energy sources are brought into wider use.

Howarth’s study questions this idea.

“The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming,” the study states.

But [natural gas industry spokesmen] also note that gas has other advantages over coal as an energy source, due to its lower emissions of conventional pollutants including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

The study cautions that the research is not meant to justify continued use of oil and coal, but rather to show that using shale gas as a substitute might not provide the desired checks on global warming.

Howarth and Cornell engineering Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, who also worked on the study, acknowledged uncertainties in the nexus between shale gas and global warming in a presentation last month.

“We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data,” Ingraffea said at a mid-March seminar, which is available for viewing on Howarth’s website.

“What we are hoping to do by this study is to stimulate the science that should have been done before, in my opinion, corporate business plans superceded national energy strategy,” he added.

This is an incredibly important discussion to have, especially given the impacts that fracking is having on our air, water, health, and our state budget.

UPDATE: The Texas Energy Report got some good response from around the Capitol and we couldn’t help include it:

“Sounds like the coal industry may have funded it,” joked Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), author of Senate Bill 15, which would create a 20-year energy and environmental policy council for Texas.

“The direction they’re going is exactly opposite of what we hear that natural gas is cleaner with less greenhouse emissions. We’ve always worked under that premise,” said Fraser who is also chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

***“I would like to see it. I don’t know what they’re drawing their conclusions on. I would say it’s interesting – significant I don’t know,” said Rep. Jim Keffer, chairman of the House Energy Resources Committee.  “We’ll have to take a look at it. I’m sure there’ll be another side.”

Keffer is the author of a bill to require oil and gas companies drilling for shale gas to disclose the contents of chemicals they inject into the ground with water and sand during fracking. Fracking involves high-pressure injections of water into the ground to fracture rock formations and release gas.

The Environmental Defense Fund of Texas, which has embraced Keffer’s bill as the most significant fracking disclosure measure in the nation, said more work is needed to determine the air quality implications of fracking.

“Though we have questions about the study’s emissions estimates, it nevertheless highlights the importance of getting better data,” said Ramon Alvarez of the EDF.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Recently, Brazil has also just earned itself the title of largest beef exporter in the world, exporting everywhere from Hong Kong, the European Union, and even to the United States (primarily fast food restaurants).  According to the Center for International Forestry Research, ‘between 1990 and 2001 the percentage of Europe’s processed meat imports that came from Brazil rose from 40-75 percent’ and by 2003 for the first time ever, ‘the growth in Brazilian cattle production—80% of which was in the Amazon—was largely export driven.’

The United States has recently been in dispute with Brazil over the cotton production industry, and (thank heavens!) placed a ban on the import of Brazilian beef…but hold on folks:  that ban is set to expire at the end of this year.  Another important note to consider: this ban on Brazilian beef imports is not a complete ban, in fact, many restaurants and other fine dining businesses in the US continue to partake in the destruction of the Amazon.  The ban only pertains to grocery stores, and is currently in debate as to whether or not it will be lifted.  The ban depends upon the dispute over cotton production industry between the two countries.  The ban was originally instated in the US due to the high levels of foot and mouth disease prominent in Brazilian beef.

Foot and mouth disease is an infectious, and sometimes fatal, viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed animals.  The virus causes a high fever for two or three days, followed by blisters inside the mouth and on the feet that may rupture and cause lameness.  Foot-and-mouth disease is a severe plague for animal farming, since it is highly infectious and can be spread by infected animals through aerosols, through contact with contaminated farming equipment, vehicles, clothing or feed, and by domestic and wild predators.  Its containment demands considerable efforts in vaccination, strict monitoring, trade restrictions and quarantines, and occasionally the elimination of millions of animals.  But once the ban is lifted this year, there’s no telling how much of our beef will be imported from Brazil.

Fast food restaurants like McDonald’s are veterans when it comes to buying their beef from Brazil, and they aren’t the only ones either! It is estimated that the making of a McDonalds Quarter-Pounder destroys 55 square feet of the endangered rainforest. So roughly speaking, this plot of land that the ever so juicy burger annihilated contains on average 1 giant tree, 50 smaller trees, 20-30 different tree species, over 100 species of insects, as well as birds, mammals, and reptiles.  The United States does import their beef from other sources, like companies in Australia as well as Canada, but since these places have been decreasing their production numbers as a result of the global recession, the US is left with few options.  The United States simply does not have enough lean meat sources in the domestic market to feed the population and must resort to relying on the import market (like Brazil) to make up the difference.

So what can you do to help? Many people have no idea where any of their food comes from, let alone their meat.  Tapping into resources that allow you to lead a more informative lifestyle when making decisions at your local grocery store is a great start.  Learning where your meat comes from and how it is raised, and only buying local or less is another option.  Then again, you could always just go cold turkey, no meat, no worries…no pun intended!

Climate change can affect livestock, especially here in Texas, aka the cattle country.  This occurs principally through variations in appetite, and distribution in energy between maintenance and growth.  The potential for disease incidence becomes increased as well. Does this become worth the cost for those who raise cattle? Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that it is not.

My family has owned a working cattle ranch for as long as I can remember.  The cattle were left to openly graze through the pastures and wander about the ranch, to the fishing pond and beyond.  I can remember countless times driving in only to be stopped by a cow standing blatantly in the middle of the road munching on some mesquite.  A few months ago, the decision was made to slowly get rid of the cattle on the ranch.  Why you ask? For one, the expense it costs to maintain such a production is becoming more than the profit.  The cattle are eating everything in sight, not allowing the wild game to acquire enough to eat to reach their full mass potential.  This essentially decreases the amount of hunting leases the ranch receives, since the game isn’t at its full potential, size wise.  As long as the cows continue to eat, they’ll also continue to erode everything in sight, especially since they’ve been grazing for so long out in the pastures.  And specifically speaking of extreme heat waves, I can remember a few times in my lifetime when we’ve had cows die right in the pastures as a result of the brutal Texas heat.  That seems to be a pretty clear indicator of the serious catastrophic risks that the effects of warming have on the hard-working cattle ranchers.

So how does this story tie in with the facts?  The result of these alterations mentioned above as related to the effects of climate change has been known to alter milk and meat production, meat quality, and species reproduction. This is a very real occurrence folks.  The cows just aren’t as healthy any more, and the expense to keep them so is only growing.  The profits returned from a cow who suffers from heat exhaustion and dehydration are less than desirable, considering the amount of money that was pumped in initially.  Climate change also affects the water supply, which indirectly affects the amount of irrigation that is allotted for agricultural purposes as well as the cattle.  In addition, grass growth and the effective distribution of  the pasture and the animals who depend upon the grazing lands in Texas become compromised. So, since the cattle on our land take up so much of the pastures and open land space, our family business is forced to compromise and only produce cattle, when the land could also very well be utilized for growing crops like alfalfa, cabbage, lettuce, etc.  But since the cattle hog all that precious land space, this is no longer a possibility.  Not to mention, pest infestation risks are also greater in warmer climates…and those Texas summers are brutal enough already!

With that being said, if climate change continues to present unfavorable conditions for livestock production, it has been suggested that ranchers may in fact need to adjust the number of cattle on their ranch (like my family’s situation-how ironic!), the time of grazing, and even the genetic composition of the cattle!

We can do anything these days, so why not just add some more GMOs to our meat.  Can’t hurt, right? After all, it’ll make them more suited to these new, more extreme environmental conditions.  So…no worries.

Lately, we proud citizens of Texas have been experiencing many floods and droughts throughout the years.  Drought can be detrimental to the cattle population as well.  Drought causes a lack of safe water accessibility for the cattle drinking it, leading to the production of unhealthy cows, who in turn do not provide healthy milk for our young human population.

As we are already dealing with an increase in warming and a shift in climate conditions, it is also worth noting that as our own population increases, the agricultural and livestock industry is only going to grow as well.  In addition to our human induced warming, a continued growth in livestock production will only exert more pressure on our ecosystems, the biodiversity, the land, our forest resources, and water quality, all the while contributing to more warming, as we continue to contribute as well.

So if all of this is happening on a quaint family cattle ranch, can you imagine the circumstances on an overpopulated factory farm? I can only imagine the conditions they’re in.  Plus, it’s important to realize that all these current studies being conducted refer to TODAY’S agricultural and livestock conditions, not tomorrow’s.

Now just imagine: a world of tomorrow with more population, way more cows to feed our population, more warming, less water supply and access to other natural resources, and perhaps a completely different economy.  There is much to be considered to maintain the health and safety of our human population for the future.  Part of this starts by learning how to successfully manage the health and ever changing conditions of the food we eat.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to limit global warming pollution from big fossil fuel industries like power plants and petroleum refineries. These industries alone account for about 40% of the global warming pollution in the U.S. — making them the two largest sources of emissions.

Here’s where you come in. The EPA is charged with developing rules called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that will protect public health, reduce the pollution that causes climate change, and send a signal to polluters that they need to invest in clean energy technologies.

It’s crucial that the EPA sticks to its schedule and develops strong rules. Between now and March 18, the EPA is accepting comments on their plans. They will definitely be receiving comments from the coal, gas and oil industries. Make sure they hear from you, too.

These rules are common sense. The EPA was created to understand our impact on our environment and protect the health of our people. An overwhelming majority of scientists are united in their understanding of the effects of global warming pollution and the EPA is charged with developing rules based on that science. Yet strong special interest groups are working to derail that process.

The EPA needs to hear that you support their efforts to limit global warming pollution from these industries. That’s why you need to encourage the EPA to issue strong New Source Performance Standards without delay.

The science is clear: Climate change is happening. Unfortunately, big polluters will make big profits if they mislead the American public about that fact. RePower America needs you to counteract and counterbalance their money and their voice by sending a comment to the EPA today.

Fill out the form by clicking here, and RePower America will deliver your comment to the EPA before the March 18 deadline:

Tim is now on trial in Utah – facing up to 10 years in prison for… raising a bid paddle. I couldn’t help but be reminded of the Hitchcock classic North By Northwest, where Cary Grant disrupts an auction specifically so that he would be arrested – getting placed in police custody to gain protection from the spies that were out to kill him.

Tim’s act was as pure an act of civil disobedience as anything I’ve heard of, and more should follow his example. He does not deserve any prison time, nor any punishment for his acts. He should be commended and rewarded for having a direct effect against the special interests which destroy and exploit our planet and its resources.

Upon being arrested and imprisoned for not paying his taxes, Henry David Thoreau remarked on the futility of imprisoning the body of a man who’s ideas were free:

They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body…. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.

Henry David Thoreau – On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

I hope that DeChristopher’s act stands as an example for the rest of us. I hope it is not one isolated event but rather the beginning of a wider awakening. Everyone must take a direct hand in the decisions that affect all our futures. It would be nice if Tim could get a similar ruling as the Greenpeace activists in Britain who were found not guilty because their actions, while illegal, were preventing a greater harm (the essence of civil disobedience).

Unfortunately U.S. District Judge Dee Benson already ruled out this kind of affirmative defense, so I doubt that will happen. But even if Tim gets the maximum sentence of 10 years we must not forget him, his efforts, or why he did what he did. We must continue the fight his “meditations” have inspired in us, regardless of whether his body can or not.

Read more here.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Dear Friends,

Thank you for helping to influence 183 Representatives in the US House to vote against Congressman McKinley’s amendment to eliminate EPA’s funding to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.  Eighteen Representatives were Republicans switching ranks to vote against their party’s leadership and for safe water.

Within one week we MUST defeat this amendment likely to be proposed to the budget bill (Continuing Resolution) that is brought to the floor of the Senate, or this egregious proposal to slash EPA’s funding could become a reality – leaving EPA unable to enforce basic safeguards at toxic coal ash dumps such as liners, covers or monitoring and thousands of American communities nearby in harm’s way.

Nearly a half million Americans submitted comments on the EPA’s proposed coal ash rules with a majority of them in support of safeguards.   More than a thousand concerned citizens who traveled to 8 day-long EPA hearings supported these safeguards.  Clearly, Americans have voiced their support FOR protection of our drinking water and public health by the US EPA.

Please call your Senators today and urge them to vote NO to any amendments to cut the US EPA’s authority to protect our health from toxic coal ash.
Use this link to find phone numbers for your Senators – you just need to type in your zip code: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

1.  Tell your Senators you want them to respect the rule-making process and the comments that their constituents submitted on the EPA coal ash regulation.

2.  Tell them to let the US EPA to do its job and protect public health.

3.  Ask them if you can count on their support for basic safeguards to protect public health from toxic coal ash.

After you make your call, please let us know you’ve made the calls and what their offices said.  Send your responses to: lwidawsky@environmentalintegrity.org.

Please let your US Senators know today that Americans throughout the country want to be protected – call them immediately and tell them to uphold our right to safe drinking water.

Thanks for your continuing help and please spread the word.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Great news from St. Louis! Students and other activists from “Green Action” (at Washington University in St. Louis) and Missourians Organized for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) entered the Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark to disrupt a meeting of the National Coal Council – a federal advisory committee to the U.S. secretary of energy (see their extremely dramatic website here).

The meeting was to focus on carbon capture and sequestration technology, but was canceled do to the disruption and chants of “Coal is never clean” and, “Clean coal is a dirty lie.” The group was peacefully escorted out of the hotel by police.

The meeting was canceled, but members of the council stayed to enjoy the private lunch they had already ordered. I’d have a joke about that, but I’m not that funny.

See more details at Washington University’s independent newspaper: Student Life

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

The livestock and agricultural industry is the single largest producer of methane, one of the biggest contributors to global warming.  In fact, 100 million tons of methane is produced each year by the animal agricultural business alone.

About 85% of the people I’ve talked to, had no idea that eating meat had such a big impact on the environment.  It’s understandable that the general public cannot cease use of all fossil fuels, electricity, and gas-guzzling SUVs, but altering your diet toward a more plant-based focus is both one of the easiest things to do to decrease your carbon footprint, as well as quickest.  You may not be in a position to trade in your car for the latest electric vehicle, but you can be aware of the choices you make at the grocery store.

This blog series is here to provide the public with the information, resources, and alternatives to avoid resorting to the all-too-easy contribution of methane production.  Public Citizen will be providing an informative blog series dedicated to the effects of meat production on the environment with various other focuses throughout this legislative season.  So stay tuned for more juicy details to come!

The livestock and cattle industry is responsible for at least 20% of greenhouse gas emissions…that’s more than all of transportation combined! That deliciously marinated beef you are about to consume accounts for 37% of all anthropogenic methane, mostly through a process known as enteric fermentation by ruminants, as well as 65% of all our anthopogenic nitrous oxide.

Now this comes from manure sources too and not just methane folks! To put that into perspective, methane is 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide with regard to its weight.  And nitrous oxide is just as guilty.  Nitrous oxide is the cause of ozone pollution as well as the smog in the atmosphere.  It’s a compound complexity on the rise! But we’ll leave the scientific jargon to linger for awhile.

Evidence also suggests that cattle production is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants on the planet.  This is a result from not only the animal waste itself, but also from the fertilizers, pesticides used for feed crops, and antibiotic hormones distributed during the growth process. The list goes on my friends…don’t forget to add the chemicals from the tanneries, and the sediments from the eroded pasturelands.

Livestock production also consumes about 8% of all human sources of water in a world that’s already facing water shortages.  That is quite a list, but that list only pertains to our precious water sources that we are already struggling to maintain sustainably.

In the United States alone, the livestock industry is responsible for 37% of all pesticide use and 50% of all antibiotic use. In addition, livestock also take up about 20% of all terrestrial biomass on Earth–just so we can all enjoy a steak or a burger whenever we please.

As the cattle industry infiltrates approximately 1/4 of our usable landmass, our planet is already struggling, might I add, with the ramifications of overpopulation.  That’s 20% more land space human beings could be occupying if we all weren’t so addicted to that tender, juicy burger sold at the restaurant down the street.

To add to our already pressing overpopulated circumstances, just think of all the natural habitats that the wildlife used to have access to prior to the invasion of those who go “mooooooooo!“  So where do all those animals go, or better yet, where have they gone?

While the entire cattle industry is busy occupying 26% of all territorial land surface, let’s not forget to factor in all the food they eat too!  Crop production of feed crop to feed the livestock requires 1/3 of all Earth’s arable land.  If I remember correctly, we’ve still got millions of starving people in the world who die every day from hunger.  Instead of feeding the impoverished and working toward ending world hunger, we are stuffing our cattle’s faces with all the food they could ever want.  And why? Only so they can get sent to the market nice and plump to eventually only satisfy our own indulgences.

I don’t know about you all, but all that jazz on the cattle industry is enough to kill my appetite for a juicy steak, and fast too.  But for our more stubborn population who might need a bit more persuasive evidence: the cattle industry is one of the major factors resulting in deforestation and overgrazing of the land as well as soil erosion.

Stay tuned for a later entry to come entirely focused on the cattle industry’s destructive tendencies, especially in areas like South America.  Its impact on our crucial resource, the Amazon Rainforest, will shock you.

The basics concerning the environmental impacts of cattle production with respect to global warming have, for now, been skimmed.  The compound consequences felt by both the environment and your health ought to be enough to turn your head, though.  It has now been established that eating meat is detrimental to our environment, but it is also worthy to note how risky it can be to your own personal health.

Historically speaking, our ancestors never intentionally consumed as much meat as in the present day.  Our nature was that of hunting and gathering, eating meat only when necessary.  The human being was still never intended to eat meat in the amount we currently consume today.  Again, be on the lookout for a blog entry in the future specifically pertaining to the historical progress of humans consumption of meat, it’s a pretty fascinating topic.

But as for now, we’ll stay focused on the health aspect of meat consumption.  Studies have been done that indicate those who eat a vegetarian diet are much healthier than those who consume meat.  As long as vegetarians are adamant about their nutrient intake, they, in fact, have lower cholesterol levels as opposed to the consumer of meat.  This can have drastic impacts on one’s longevity.  Lower cholesterol levels are a result from a lower fat intake, which in turn, decreases the risk of heart disease.

Those who eat meat are also at a higher risk for certain cancers.  For example, evidence suggests that women who consume red meat nearly double their risks of being diagnosed with breast cancer.  Meat contains a substantial amount of saturated fat which is also linked to other circulatory system diseases in addition to heart disease.  17 million Americans are impacted by the effects of heart disease, whether it be a coronary heart attack, or something more acute.

Obesity is on the rise and becoming an epidemic here in the United States, and vegetarians have been proven to have a lower BMI index than those who consume meat products.  Studies also show that in comparison to plants, meats tend to have higher concentration levels of environmental toxins, like mercury, and other pesticide residues.  On another note, meat is processed in plants that have had questionable sanitation methods.  Remember mad cow disease? Well, diseases of food poisoning result from meat consumption rather than from a plant-based diet.  Overuse of antibiotics and hormones is another risk posed when consuming meat.

If people aren’t going to admit to the fact that meat production degrades the environment at a devastating rate…then at least they should consider the health of the matter: you put yourself and your well-being at risk.  I’m sure many would agree that that risk isn’t worth the taste of that juicy burger down the street.

As Texans, meat seems to be part of our nature, hardly thinking twice about the consequence it may have.  While halting all consumption of any type of meat immediately is quite the extreme route, there are alternatives to eating meat for every meal.  Going to the grocery store and being more aware of the choices you have as a responsible citizen really can impact the environment in a more positive manner.  Recognizing and acting upon those choices is key…. after all, diet is one of the easiest and most proactive ways a Texan can help alter the implications our planet is currently facing.

Related Articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/the-breathtaking-effects_b_181716.html

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/waterpollution/

The Keystone pipeline project is Canadian initiated undertaking involving both TransCanada and ConocoPhillips.  The pipeline is set out to be about 1380 miles long and the pipe itself is projected to be about 36 inches in diameter.  The Keystone pipeline will enter the United States from Alberta, Canada through Montana, cross through South Dakota and Nebraska to send its 700,000 barrels/day supply into stations in Oklahoma and East Texas.  In doing so, this means the pipeline would be crossing 554 acres of wetlands and 91 streams that support either recreational or commercial fisheries.

The Keystone pipeline will also run right through the Ogallala Aquifer, meaning potential damage to one of the country’s largest sources of water if a spill should occur.   And we all know how easy it can be for an oil spill to occur.  (see the recent WSJ article on the BP Alaskan pipeline leak)

In fact, TransCanada is supposed to construct the actual pipes to be made out of a thinner material, but the oil will be pumped at a higher pressure than normal, which increases the risks of spills even more.  The last thing we need is another BP disaster in the gulf or pipeline leak in Alaska.  But suppose you say, “So what, what’s another oil spill?”  Well, it just so happens that this pipeline will be transporting some of the dirtiest oil in the world.

This type of oil, known as tar sands oil, produces more global warming pollution than our normal conventional oil, 20% more to be exact.  It also makes conventional oil seem pretty darn clean.  Tar sands oil is full of toxic and harmful materials not only dangerous to the environment but the health of the communities surrounding the pipelines are endangered  as well.  Producing this oil for the Keystone XL will essentially result in the emittance of 11 million more tons of carbon dioxide.

I don’t know about you, but I think we have enough carbon dioxide already to even begin worrying about adding any more.

Tar Sands Pipeline Route

Tar sands in general require strip mining techniques in order to be extracted, another detrimental mechanism that rapidly destroys our planet.  Before the tar sands pipeline reaches the United States, it is extracted from Canada and these tar sands happen to be found underneath the Boreal Forest.  The Boreal Forest is a critical carbon reservoir and an increase in deforestation should be a concern for all of us, not just Canada.  Go ahead, do the math. Cutting down trees in the Boreal Forest, but adding 11 million tons of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere just doesn’t seem to add up.  By using these tar sands underneath the Boreal Forest, we are only continuing our trend of our inability to cope with the rising greenhouse gas emissions as we eliminate some of our most effective resources who can help combat the issue.

Because this pipeline crosses international boundaries, a Presidential Permit is required from the Department of State.  Unfortunately, Obama has granted the permit and phase 1 of the construction has already been put into effect.  Phase 2 of the pipeline project began in 2010 and  is set to be completed in late 2011.  But, members are currently challenging the order in court.

In October of last year, Nebraskan Senators Ben Nelson and Mark Johanns each send separate letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raising concerns about the proposed passage of the pipeline.  In November, an environmental group letter was compiled and sent to Clinton to request that the Department of State issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL project and provide a sufficient period of time for public review.  A national ad campaign was also issued in November of 2010 calling upon President Obama to nix the pipeline and prevent future oil spill disasters.

Here at Public Citizen, we’ve been working with Sierra Club in Austin to mobilize and educate the citizens of East Texas.  Many landowners out in east Texas have been threatened with eminent domain from TransCanada to give up their land for the project.    Recently, Oklahoma citizens have filed a motion in district court to block TransCanada’s plan to exercise eminent domain in order to build across their property. Sierra Club and Public Citizen have established what is called the STOP coalition in Oklahoma and Texas for landowners in opposition of the pipeline.

There is still time to stop the tar sands project from reaching Texas, your voice is vital though.

Related Articles:

http://tarsandspipelines.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/another-day-another-keystone-pipeline-spill/

http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/keystone_pipeline/

http://www.foe.org/opposition-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-tar-sands-oil-getting-under-big-oils-skin

http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/dirtyspots/category/keystone_xl/

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

The latest controversy involves the decision made late last year that the EPA would in fact be taking over the permitting process regarding emission regulation in Texas.   In response, Texas is now currently suing the EPA to try and halt their implementation plan which would essentially call for more rigid regulation standards in either new or existing power plant and/or oil facilities.

EPA vs. Texas: Emissions Shootout

Texas claims that the EPA is overstepping the state’s authority with respect to emission setting standards.  The EPA’s justification for taking over the permitting process is related to Texas rejecting to comply with the EPA’s new greenhouse gas rules issued earlier this year.  The EPA claims that Texas has left them no other choice but to take over, not only because of the hot-headed letter we sent to EPA refusing to comply with the Clean Air Act, but also since Texas is also the leading nation in greenhouse gas emissions as well as industrial pollution.   By holding this hearing, the EPA is allowing both environmental advocacy groups as well as the public to voice their opinion before the final decision is rendered concerning emission standards.

Will the outcome of this battle prove to be victorious? Tune in next time to find out!

Related Articles:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-06/epa-texas-feud-escalates-over-new-carbon-regulations.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7381200.html#drop

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/print-edition/2011/01/14/epas-takeover-of-permitting-to-have.html

This town hall was one of a series of events held to provide the people of Texas a way in which to voice their concerns to TCEQ. The official Sunset Commission hearing on TCEQ is scheduled for December 15th in Austin. For more video footage of these town halls check our archives and stay tuned to TexasVOX. For more information on the ongoing Sunset review of TCEQ check out Alliance for a Clean Texas.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We arePublic Citizen Texas.

The Alliance for a Clean Texas kicked off a series of town hall meetings across the state on the sunset review of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on September 15 th.  Last night in Corpus Christi, residents criticized the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, saying it holds too much power and ignores public concerns in the interest of business.

Nearly 250 people, participated in the meeting, about the agency’s upcoming review by the state’s Sunset Commission, which is required by state law and seeks to identify and reduce waste, duplication of efforts and inefficiency.

Cyrus Reed, conservation director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Ryan Rittenhouse with Public Citizen and Donna Phillips, area director for the agency’s Coastal Bend and East Texas Region all gave brief presentations during the meeting held at Del Mar College’s Center for Economic Development.  Their comments centered on Corpus Christi’s recent experiences with the TCEQ over the proposed Las Brisas Energy Center, a $3 billion petroleum coke-fired electricity plant whose permit application is under review by the state environmental agency. If approved, the plant will be built near the Port of Corpus Christi.

• Cyrus Reed, conservation director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that the agency’s role in the Las Brisas permitting process is at the center of a national debate on energy resources and the environment.  He said that coal plants, including Las Brisas, pose an ongoing threat to the state’s environment and went on to say Sierra Club would like to see the agency increase fines and fees and follow the federal Clean Air Act.
• Ryan Rittenhouse with Public Citizen said that the decision to allow coal plants should not rest with the agency’s three commissioners. “The commissioners are completely ignoring their mission, which is to guard the state’s environment, not its economy,” he said.  Coal-fired plants add toxins such as mercury into the environment. He added that the Gulf Coast and 13 Texas lakes and reservoirs and three rivers are under mercury contamination advisories for two species of fish.
• Donna Phillips, area director for the agency’s Coastal Bend and East Texas Region, told the crowd that the agency’s primary goal is a clean environment and the agency creates and enforces regulations to that end.

Twenty residents spoke during the meeting and none had any praise for the agency.

• Tom Thomas, a teacher, said that he is distrustful of the commissioners of the agency.  “When three people can ignore the warnings of doctors, judges and even their own public interest council and make decisions, that is messed up,” he said.
• “The system is totally broken,” said John Kelly, a local environmental activist. “And I’m not sure TCEQ shouldn’t be totally abolished and we shouldn’t start from scratch.”
• Daniel Lucio, a Corpus Christi resident, said the Las Brisas permit process has not involved the public. He said that the commissioners, who decide which permits are approved, hold too much power.

The state agency, second only to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency in size and jurisdiction, is one of 29 under commission scrutiny this year, including the state’s Public Utility Commission, Railroad Commission and Department of Transportation.

The Sunset Commission is composed of five appointees from each state legislative body and two private citizens. Legislative members serve four-year terms and private citizens serve two-year terms on the commission.  All are appointed by the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House.

The Sunset Advisory Commission will hear testimony from the agency, commission staff members and the public at hearings Dec. 15 and 16 in Austin and the commission will submit its recommendations to the Legislature when it convenes next year.

The town hall meetings being coordinated by ACT are not part of the Sunset input process but we encourage people around the state to attend those meetings when they are held in your area.  For information about when and were the town hall meetings are being held, click here.

Citizens wishing to speak to the commission will only have that opportunity at the December hearing.  However,  there are other opportunities for members of the public who wish to participate in the review process to do so. It is important for citizens to realize that they can provide valuable information to the Sunset Commission about how well or poorly an agency performs its functions. Your input can help identify potential issues for study and proposed changes to the agency. You can participate in the review of an agency by:

• Providing Input to Sunset Staff. You can submit your comments on an input form or mail them to:.
  Sunset Advisory Commission
  PO Box 13066
  Austin, TX 78711
• Commenting on Sunset Reports. Sunset reports are made available to the public before Sunset Commission hearings to provide an opportunity for public comment on the staff’s findings and recommendations and on the agencies themselves. You may submit comments to the Sunset Commission by letter (at the above address) or by email.
• Testifying at Public Hearings. The Commission holds public hearings on each agency under review. These hearings offer the public an opportunity to testify about an agency and comment on the Sunset staff’s recommendations. If you would like to testify before the Commission, witness affirmation forms are available at the meeting. Public hearings are webcast and archives are available.
• Taking Part in the Legislative Session. Generally, if an agency is to be continued, a bill must be passed by the Legislature. Members of the public can participate in the legislative process as you would with any other legislation.  You can follow the TCEQ Sunset process by visiting our website regularly or Follow us on Twitter- @PublicCitizenTX.

If you have special needs or wish to request an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, contact the Sunset ADA Coordinator at sunset@sunset.state.tx.us or call (512) 463-1300.

This is your process and your participation is vital if any changes to TCEQ are going to happen.  Let your voice be heard.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.