Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Radioactive Plumbing in Central Texas – will we have a place to dispose of “hot pipes”?

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on May 19, 2011 |

According to a story by KHOU-Channel 11 out of Houston, radiation has contaminated the underground pipes, water tanks, and plumbing that provide drinking water for much of Central Texas and the Hill Country, much to the consternation of  concerned city officials in the region, who tested some pipes with Geiger counters.

Recently, the City of Brady made the discovery when replacing older steel water pipes.  When the city took the pipes to a local recycling scrap yard, the scrap yard turned them away as “too radioactive” to recycle.   Check out the KHOU story at Texas drinking water makes pipes and plumbing radioactive.

Could this be even more radioactive waste that will be traveling through Texas to the WCS dump in Andrews County?  Did the legislature act too hastily in not requiring a study of the capacity of the site before opening it up to the rest of the nation?  Will the WCS site be filled up by the time Central Texas cities need to get rid of old radioactive pipes?

Read Full Post »

Half of Texas suffering an “exceptional drought”

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , on May 16, 2011 |

Less than halfway through 2011, this country has already seen three “exceptional” meteorological events just in the past few weeks. These events that pushed the record books to the limit include:

  • A deadly swarm of 244 confirmed tornadoes from April 25-28, (with 112 reports of tornadoes yet to be confirmed) that raked the South and Southeast, with some tornadoes up to a mile wide that remained on the ground for over 100 miles.
  • a slow-moving flood disaster with record flooding or lake levels recorded in 25 locations in 10 states, topping the Great Flood of 1927, and
  • the Southern drought that is creeping toward a new record Just under 6% of the continental US is currently suffering an “exceptional drought”. That’s 185,321 square miles (an area larger than the state of California – 163,695 sq. mi.)

This exceptional drought event has not yet broken the record drought coverage set back on Aug. 20, 2002, but it is getting close.

And while this is not yet the worst drought on record, of note is the fact that just under half (47.5%) of the state of Texas is in this “exceptional” category!  The previous maximum coverage of exceptional drought in Texas was a mere 18.8% on Aug. 25, 2009 (this since aerial coverage of records have been kept starting in January 2000).

Texas has gone from being at least 82% in drought to less than 12% in drought 14 times over the last 11 years! This probably makes Texas one of the most “feast or famine” precipitation states in the nation and we are certainly in a famine phase right now.

Right now there is little expectation that we can expect relief from this current drought in the near future, and that relief may come too late for some. If the past decade is any indication, it also means relief may come in the form of too much, and parts of the state can expect exceptional flooding. Some meteorologists think this may be evidence of the amplification of the water cycle as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), relating to greater evaporation over land and water.

As Texas rides these roller coaster weather shifts, it is clear that the state needs to carefully assess its water resources and that means looking at water usage by conventional power generators (coal and nuclear).

Read Full Post »

Radioactive Waste? ‘No’ Vote on SB 1504

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on May 15, 2011 |

Senate Bill 1504 (by Seliger: R-Amarillo and Hinojosa: D-McAllen) the riskiest bill for the environment this session will be heard on the Texas house floor on Tuesday, May 17th.  If passed in its current form, the risks include:

  • Risk that we won’t have enough space for our own waste
  • Risk of an unfunded taxpayer liability
  • Risk from a radioactive rollover
  • Risk that we might contaminate the nation’s largest aquifer, which is nearby

This bill divorces the risk from the profit in the Texas radioactive waste industry putting the liability for a private radioactive waste disposal site on the taxpayers of Texas while putting billions into the pockets of a Texas billionaire.

It’s time to call our legislators- Click here to find out who represents you in the Texas House of Representatives (make sure you select” House” as your District Type”) and give your state legislator a call.  Tell them NO on SB 1504.

A report released April 28th by Public Citizen’s Texas office finds that we could expect a substantial increase in radioactive transportation accidents.  According to WCS’s own transportation study, Texas can expect to have 4,500 trucks rumbling across the state on I-10, I-20, I-30, I-40 and I-27 each year.  That works out to 1,000 trucks per highway, or 3 per day.  The state is simply not prepared to deal with the possibility of a radioactive roll over at an emergency response level or at a financial liability level.  In the event of a transportation accident involving radioactive waste, Texas would have only $500,000 available to cover emergency response, health care and property damage costs, that amount is far too little.

Concern about taxpayer liability is also spelled out in the report which claims that the dump site being constructed in Andrews County does not have adequate capacity to receive waste from outside the state.  It cites a 2000 study by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (see http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/llrw/entire.pdf for a copy of the study) and an estimate produced by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, both showing the site to be short on capacity for just the Texas and Vermont waste it was originally intended to handle.

We are recommending to members of the Texas Legislature that they vote against SB 1504 and not allow importation until the risks have been addressed and capacity at the site exists.  It has taken 30 years to start construction on a site for our own waste. SB 1504 would likely send us back to the drawing board if we don’t have space for our own waste.

The people of Texas are at risk from a leak at the site, which is located dangerously close to the Ogallala Aquifer and is only 150 feet from groundwater.  If the dump site located in the west Texas county of Andrews were to leak, the cleanup cost could be anywhere from three to 50 times the amount set aside by the site operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). Two examples of radioactive leaks – include one in South Texas that garnered a $384 million cleanup bill, and another in New York that is estimated at $5 billion.

You can help!

Call your legislator and tell them to not put the cart before the horse.  Tell them NO on SB 1504.When the legislature voted to let a private facility run our Compact Facility, they told us that this would help prevent it from becoming a national dumping ground, and we believed you.  Now SB 1504 is doing just the opposite.  The legislature should first look at taking our Texas waste and study the capacity of the site before turning us into the national dumping ground. Vote No on SB 1504.

Click here to read a copy of the report. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Say No To The Las Brisas “Coal” Plant

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 12, 2011 |

Towards the end of January an independent panel of judges, the Office of Public Interest Counsel, and the EPA all recommended that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality deny the proposed permit for the Las Brisas petroleum-coke burning plant based on its multiple deficiencies and clear violations of the Clean Air Act. The Perry-appointed commissioners approved it anyways. According to its permit, Las Brisas will emit 220 pounds of mercury, 100 pounds of lead, 8,096 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 1,767 tons of particulate matter every year.

Communities in Corpus Christi are left with few options: the ultimate authority of the EPA, and the leadership of their elected officials.

“This is my hometown, and I love it,” Rebecca Lyons, a graduating honors student at TAMU Corpus Christi, told Matt Tresaugue of the Houston Chronicle back in January, “But I don’t want to raise a family here because of the health risks…There has to be a better way.”

After hundreds of letters, petitions, and phone calls made to the EPA, Corpus Christi residents are taking their fight to the online world. Join us!

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKmMBm0qFKM]

Take Action Online!

Copy and paste this status and video to the EPA’s Facebook pages!

Corpus Christi doesn’t want Las Brisas. Stop the air permit now! http://bit.ly/merA7n

EPA’s Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/X4FYe

EPA Region 6 Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/lBXW9C

Administrator Lisa Jackson’s Facebook Page: http://on.fb.me/130rQ6

Are you on Twitter? Tweet with us!

@epaGOV @lisapjackson I want clean air! Stop the Las Brisas air permit in Corpus Christi, TX!
http://bit.ly/merA7n

Ready to go the distance?

Ask your elected officials if they support responsible growth, or Las Brisas. Copy and paste this to their Facebook pages:

I’m a voting constituent, and I don’t want Las Brisas. Do you?
http://bit.ly/merA7n

US House Rep Blake Farenthold: http://on.fb.me/f2XnkP

State Rep Connie Scott: http://on.fb.me/jj0qJv

State Rep Todd Hunter: http://on.fb.me/mpSG5d

Mayor Joe Adame: http://on.fb.me/km137a

State Senator Judith Zaffirini: http://on.fb.me/lbxOW5

State Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa does not have a Facebook page.
Send his office an email instead!

Read Full Post »

2010 Performance Assessment of South Texas Project Nuclear Power Plant

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on May 11, 2011 |

NRC WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 2010 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

STP Houston and Corpus ChristiMost of us are familiar with the 10 and 50 mile zones around Fukushima, this map shows those same zones around the South Texas nuclear plant located just 76 miles outside of Houston.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Bay City, Texas, on Thursday, May 19, with representatives of South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Operating Co., to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for the South Texas Project nuclear power plant located near Bay City.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. at the Wharton County Junior College (Center for Energy Development) 4000 Avenue F, Bay City, Texas.

In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of the South Texas (Nuclear) Project and the NRC’s role in ensuring safe plant operation.

The meeting will provide an opportunity for NRC to discuss their annual assessment of the plant with the company, local officials and the public.   NRC will answer any questions attendees may have about their oversight.

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during 2010 and will serve as the basis for discussion. It is available on the NRC website – click here to read the letter.

In light of public concerns that have emerged regarding the safety of nuclear plants here in the U.S. in the wake of the Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukushima, this public meeting provides an excellent opportunity for citizens living 10, 50, or even 150 miles away to find out what measures are in place at South Texas Project to protect it’s neighbors.

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

TCEQ Sunset bill moving forward, looking better

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on May 4, 2011 |

Good news! Yesterday, the Senate Natural Resources Committee took important steps toward getting the TCEQ Sunset bill back on track. They did this by doing two things. First, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Senator Huffman, offered the original bill language as the committee substitute for HB 2694.

Making this substitution means that the Senate version doesn’t have the modifications made by the House–including the Chisum amendments that changed the contested case hearing process.

Second, the set of amendments offered at the hearing did not include the Chisum amendments. What this means is that the Senate will not be able to put those amendments on the bill when it comes to the Senate floor. (This is a technicality of the Senate rules.)

Taken together,  Senate Natural Resources set the Senate up to pass a “clean” version of the TCEQ sunset bill.

This is a major accomplishment that would not have been possible without the calls, email and personal communication from Texans all over the state.

On behalf of everyone working on this legislation in the Capitol and around the state, we would like to thank you for your efforts on this bill.  Honestly, there were a couple of industry lobbyists who looked pretty surprised and downtrodden at the end of the hearing. 

However, we are far from being out of the woods on this bill–and on the attack on contested case hearings.

Once HB 2694 gets through the Senate, it will go to conference committee where the difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill will be worked out, you got it, behind closed doors.

That’s one reason to keep up the pressure on the senators–to let them know in no uncertain terms that we will not stand for the House version of the bill–and that we expect them to stand up for the clean bill.

The attack on contested case hearings continues on the House side in the two stand alone bills the amendments came from–HB 3037 and HB 3251. If and when these bills are scheduled to come to the House floor, we will alert you again to ask for your help.

Thanks in advance for any work you can do on these two bills now–calling your representative today or tomorrow would be a great way to start building awareness that Texans are against these two bills because they attack our right to protect our property.

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen asks to depose Chairman and former Executive Director of the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , on April 17, 2011 |

In the opening salvo of a long-anticipated legal battle over a rule that would leave Texas open to radioactive waste from all over the country traveling along our highways to a West Texas dumpsite, Public Citizen’s Texas office filed a petition in Travis County District Court  on Thursday. 

The petition alleges many significant flaws in the process by which these rules were adopted and seeks to depose officials to find  out whether these were a series of inept mistakes, or part of an effort to suppress  citizens’ rights to comment on expanded importation of dangerous radioactive waste.

Public Citizen’s petition does not state any specific wrongdoing. Instead, it requests depositions be scheduled to  investigate “potential claims concerning the Commission’s recent, flawed rule-making.”

During the 2010 holiday season Public Citizen and SEED tangled with aspiring radioactive waste dump company Waste Control Specialists (WCS)and the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission (Compact Commission) over a radioactive waste rulemaking that Public Citizen claims was fraught with irregularities.

The petition alleges that:

  • The commission published the wrong email address for comments
  • The over 6,000 comments received weren’t properly reviewed, evaluated and responded to,
  • The comments were undercounted,   
  • The commission failed to legally find that there is enough excess capacity  to allow importation from other states
  • The commission has failed to analyze the risk of a transportation accident or the risk of a terrorist capturing  some of these waste

The Compact Commission began a public comment period the day after Thanksgiving and ended it the day after Christmas, putting the public at a serious disadvantage.  They then claimed to have adequately responded to the over six thousand comments that poured in toward the end of the 30 day comment period in only a matter of days without any technical or legal staff to analyze those comments. 

Based on existing evidence it seems most likely that [Compact Commission] Chairman Michael Ford attempted to read and respond to over six thousand public comments and the numerous technically complex filings from consumer organizations, law firms, and elected officials between Christmas and New Years while sitting around his mother-in-law’s kitchen table.  That would meaning reading three comments a minute – a herculean and, frankly, impossible task.  This is hardly the kind of reasoned analysis envisioned inTexaslaw.

Despite the fact that over six thousand Texans took time out over the holidays to write letters opposing the idea of importing radioactive waste from all over the country to Texas, the Compact Commission voted 6-2 in favor of the plan.  The vote took place on January 4th, just two days before the inauguration of Vermont’s governor elect, who had publicly stated during his campaign that he intended to appoint two new Vermont members to the Commission.  The Compact Commission is composed of six members fromTexas and two members fromVermont.

The petition also alleges that the Compact Commission’s importation rule would result in a substantial increase the number of trucks carrying radioactive waste along Texas highways, into the thousands according to WCS’s own transportation study submitted when they applied for their license.  This dangerous waste would be vulnerable to accidents and roll-overs as well as terrorist attacks.

During a December 2010 legal challenge to the proceeding, federal judge Sam Sparks expressed concern over the way public comments were handled.  If granted, the petition would provide a low-cost means to determine whether there were violations of state and federal laws by the Compact Commission.  Further action by the state of Texasor Vermont and Public Citizen could hinge on what is revealed in the depositions of key decision-makers involved in the rule-making process, including Michael Ford, the Compact Commission’s chairman, and the Commission’s former executive director who left her post before the vote.

If the commission is inept, that should heighten everyone’s concern about whether they are competent to  regulate radioactive  waste. If they are actively trying to downplay the extent of opposition to importation, it raises serious questions about their commitment to following Texas open meeting and open records laws.

A hearing on the petition has been scheduled for May 9th at 2:30 PM.

Read Full Post »

Radioactive Waste Could Be Rumbling Through Your Town Unless State Legislators Close Loopholes in SB 1504

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on April 14, 2011 |

18-Wheeler Accident Spills Radioactive Material in Pineville, LA

With the passage of SB 1504 in the Texas Senate, radioactive waste could soon be barreling down Texas highways and through our neighborhoods by way of Interstate 10 through Houston, San Antonio and El Paso; I-20 and I-30 though Dallas and Forth Worth, Midland and Odessa ; and I-27 though Lubbock and Amarillo. 

The greatest risk we face is having an accident with vehicles containing waste.  Cleanup estimates range from $100 to a billion dollars or more according to the U.S. Department of Energy, but the state of Texas has set aside only $500,000.  Taxpayers would pay the rest.

 And what if an accident happens next to a school, playground or hospital?  Don’t we want to make sure that our local emergency responders have the training and equipment needed to handle an accident where a truck is leaking radioactive waste?

 Thanks to Senator Seliger’s leadership, there have been some important protections added in, but a number of loopholes remain that dramatically increases the risk and liability assumed by Texas taxpayers.  There is still a chance to close these loopholes.  This bill goes to the Texas House floor next week and Texans should ask their legislators to make sure that there is an immediate thorough analysis of transportation risks, costs of cleaning up contamination from accidents or leaks, and waste capacity at the site.

 As the Japanese nuclear disaster has taught us, cleaning up after radioactive waste can be a costly and dangerous process.  We urge the house to make sure we have protective measures in place before an accident.

Read Full Post »

Robert Redford – Fighting Goliath

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , on April 12, 2011 |

Robert Redford, who has been a major figure in film in this country since the 60s (as an actor, director, and producer), is once again in the limelight for the release of his new film The Conspirator.  But as much of note in Mr. Redford’s life is his lifelong commitment to positive social and environmental change through the arts, education and civil discourse.  We’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Mr. Redford’s contribution to clean air in Texas through his support of a documentary film about the Texas coal wars.

[vimeo 22308397]

Released in 2008, narrated by Robert Redford and co-produced by The Redford Center at the Sundance Preserve and Alpheus Media, Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars, follows the story of ordinary Texans – mayors, ranchers, farmers, CEOs, community groups, legislators, and lawyers – that came together to oppose the construction of 19 conventional coal-fired power plants that were slated to be built in Eastern and Central Texas and that were being fast-tracked by the Governor.  Click here to watch the entire documentary.

Read Full Post »

Weekly Bill Update from ACT

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on April 12, 2011 |

We will be posting the weekly update provided to us by the Alliance for Clean Texas throughout the legislative session.

Now that April’s in full swing, there’s never a dull moment for environmental advocacy at the Capitol. I want to tell you where we are on several of ACT’s priority bills this week.  The TCEQ Sunset bill (HB 2694) was passed out of the House Environmental Regulation Committee today.  We anticipate that this bill will be on the House floor for a vote early next week.  Right now, we are still waiting to see what kind of amendments this bill draws.

The fracking fluid disclosure bill (HB 3328) was heard in the House Energy Resources Committee last week. This bill, which has bipartisan support, would enable Texans to know what kinds of chemicals are being used in hydraulic fracturing operations and establish much-needed transparency measures as gas drilling continues to increase. We hope it will be voted out of the committee this week.

Other environmental legislation is also working through the process. The TV Take Back Recycling bill (SB 329/HB 1966) has passed through the Senate and has been heard in House Environmental Regulation. The energy efficiency coordinating council bill (HB 773)–which would make our state’s energy efficiency programs more efficient–has been reported out of committee. There’s still time for other bills to make it through, but the prospects are best for bills that are out of committee in the next week.

The Alliance For A Clean Texas is an alliance of environmental, public interest, consumer rights and religious organizations dedicated to improving public health, quality of life and the environment in Texas by working for change at the regulatory and legislative levels.

ACT Partner Organizations

Sierra Club
Public Citizen (Texas office)
Environmental Defense Fund
Texas Impact
Air Alliance of Houston
Texas Campaign for the Environment
SEED Coalition
Environment Texas
Texas League of Conservation Voters
Re-Energize Texas
Environmental Integrity Project
Texas Center for Policy Studies
Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance
Hill Country Alliance
National Wildlife Foundation
Clean Water Action
Baptist Commission on Christian Life

Other state-wide organizations that work with ACT :

Physicians for Social Responsibility
American Lung Association
Texas League of Women Voters
NAACP

Read Full Post »

Rolling Blackouts – NEVER AGAIN! – well at least not for another 21 years

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on April 12, 2011 |

An unusual weather event and rolling blackouts – what lessons were learned?  Apparently none.

A report from the Public Utility Commission of Texas is clear in its analysis of what went wrong and what needed to be done to prevent another such event:

The winter freeze greatly strained the ability of the Texas electric utilities to provide reliable power to their customers. Record and near-record low temperatures were felt throughout the state resulting in a significantly increased demand for electrical power.

At the same time that demand was increasing, weather-related equipment malfunctions were causing generating units to trip off the line. As a result, the state suffered widespread rolling blackouts and near loss of the entire ERCOT electric grid.

The extreme weather pointed out several weak areas in power plant operations. Inoperative or inadequate heat tracing systems and inadequate insulation on instrumentation sensing lines seemed to be the most common technical equipment problem encountered during the freeze.

Whether the corrective actions being implemented by the utilities are sufficient to prevent future freeze-related power plant failures, only direct experience with another deep freeze will ascertain.

You’d think this report was about the rolling blackout endured by a large swath of Texas when temperatures plunged and power plants failed this past February, but it isn’t.  This report was dated November 1990 and is referring to the record freeze of late December 1989.

The lone remaining copy of this report, “Electric Utility Response to the Winter Freeze of December 21 to December 23, 1989”, at PUC resides in its library north of the Capitol apparently unread and unheeded.  The descriptions of conditions in the old report — as well as the power companies’ explanations for what went wrong and how they intended to fix it — contain enough similarities to the rolling blackouts of two months ago to raise questions about how much the industry and its regulators have learned from the past.

Although state regulators are charged with overseeing many aspects of the energy market, requiring utilities to be weatherized isn’t one of them. When the PUC compiled its suggestions in 1990, there was nothing to make sure they would be followed.

One result of the February 2011 power shortages is a bill introduced by state Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) that would require power generation companies to produce a weatherization plan that is available to the public and reviewed regularly by the Public Utility Commission.

Perhaps this time, we have learned a lesson.  Letting industry regulate itself is not always in the consumers’ best interest.

###

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.

Read Full Post »

Is fracking worse for the climate than coal?

Posted in Air Quality, Global Warming, natural gas, tagged , , , , , , , on April 11, 2011 |

A new study from Cornell Professor Robert Howarth shows that natural gas from shale beds extracted through hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has the same effect on the climate as burning coal, tarnishing one of the natural gas industry’s major claims of being a less polluting and more climate friendly fossil fuel.

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.

Read Full Post »

Your Grocery Bill and the Amazon Rainforest: What’s the Big Deal?

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on April 11, 2011 |

Could your trip down to the neighborhood meat market, or your favorite burger joint be contributing to the demise of the Amazon rainforest?  Cattle ranching in Brazil is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon. This is old news though.  Cattle ranching has been the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest since the 70s.  The cattle industry in Brazil is responsible for 80% of the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon region to be exact.  This means that the ever growing cattle sector in Brazil is also a huge contributor to the greenhouse effect.  According to Greenpeace, statistics show that 2.5 acres of the rainforest is destroyed every 18 seconds.  To compound the situation, the number of cattle in Brazil has nearly doubled since 1990.  Back in the 90s, Brazil only produced enough beef to feed its own population.  Today, the cattle production industry, located in the heart of the Amazon on a territory known as Mato Grosso, has increased by at least 50 billion.  Here in Mato Grosso, pasturelands have been cleared for cattle grazing the size of Portugal!

Pie chart of deforestation in the Amazon

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. (more…)

Read Full Post »

And the landscape of merry and desperate drought

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , on April 6, 2011 |

In most years, the dark clouds over the Texas Panhandle in the spring means rain. This year, they’re more likely be an indicator of wildfires which have already burned thousands of acres in March as the state stares once again into the face of a severe drought.

Our neighbor, Oklahoma was drier in December, January, February and March than it has been in any similar period since 1921. That’s saying a lot in the state known for the 1930s Dust Bowl, when drought, destructive farming practices and high winds generated severe dust storms that stripped the land of its topsoil.

March 29, 2011 Drought Monitor MapThe drought stretches from the Louisiana Gulf coast to Colorado, and conditions are getting worse, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.  The area in Texas covered by an extreme drought has tripled in the past month to 40 percent.  A daunting prospect for a state that was just starting to recover from our last drought.

Drought indicators in east-central Texas puts the region in the Exceptional Drought (D4) level, and if rain does not materialize soon, intensification of the current drought is likely. And the drought regions in northern and central Texas continued to depict worsening conditions as well, as the lingering benefits of scant late-winter rainfall gives way to dry, hot weather.

An extreme drought is declared when there’s major damage to crops or pasture and widespread water shortages or restrictions.  Weather forecasters expect the drought in Texas to continue or get worse through June in most of the state with the danger of fire remaining extremely high according to the National Weather Service.  They are also warning that this could be one of the more devastating droughts on record if the state doesn’t start getting normal to above normal rainfall before June.

According to the state climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas hasn’t had a drier October to February period since 1967. The five months that ended Feb. 28 saw only 4.8 inches of rain on average across the state. In a typical year, an average of 9.7 inches would fall.  As examples, Midland got .1 inches of rain in March, while College Station got 6 inches. Usually, those cities would get 4.6 and 19.1 inches respectively.

The drought has been made worse by warmer than normal temperatures.  This past Sunday, low humidity and winds up to 55 mph fueled the spread of wildfires across West Texas, and four big ones burned more than 11,000 acres.  Currently nearly 180 of Texas’ 254 counties have burn bans.

While the state fights the EPA tooth and nail over the regulation of greenhouse gasses, Texans get to see first-hand, the impacts of climate change on our daily lives.  It’s going to be a long hot summer folks.

Read Full Post »

Bill of the Day – SB 875 by Fraser – BAD

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , , on April 5, 2011 |

Senate Bill 875 by Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horsehoe Bay) would take away a Texan’s right to sue a company for “nuisance” or “trespass” resulting from greenhouse gas emissions if that company is compliant with air emissions permits issued by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or an agency of the federal government.

The bill would roll back Texas nuisance law that predates the Clean Air Act, protecting businesses that emit greenhouse gases from enforcement actions, civil lawsuits or criminal claims.

The Texas Chemical Council, Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Texas Association of Business, Texas Association of Manufacturers and Texas Pipeline Association and other business groups back the bill, but environmental groups oppose the measure.

The bill is designed to put a halt to a trend of public nuisance claims as a way to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Although the EPA has announced plans to issue rules governing greenhouse gas emissions, air quality permits held by Texas businesses do not currently regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Our ownTom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen’s Texas office, testified against the bill in committee, telling the committee that greenhouse gases are effectively a nuisance because they can cause adverse health effects, change the fertility cycles in plants and animals, and require retrofitting of roads and bridges to withstand greater temperatures. The bill would take away a legal tool citizens have used that predates the Clean Air Act and one that has been used by citizens to sue oil and gas companies.

Smitty further testified that if the standards are unclear, the fallback position you have is nuisance. It interferes with your enjoyment of the environment or causes health effects making the bill far more nefarious than it appears on the surface.

Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) argued, “It’s not right, to say you can do whatever you want with greenhouse gases simply because you are in general compliance with some permit that doesn’t cover greenhouse gases.”

Even the TCEQ has reported that the bill could “hamper the agency’s ability to cite a nuisance violation for greenhouse gases” and allow the “nuisance” to persist and result in lower revenues from penalties, according to the bill’s fiscal note.

Bill by bill, this legislature seems intent upon whittling away protections for individual Texas citizens in favor of the rights of industry.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »