Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

A Successful ‘Roll Beyond Coal’ Tour, Now What Will the EPA Do?

Posted in Coal, Energy, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on October 7, 2009 |

GetAttachment.aspx

Yesterday marked the end of a State-Wide “Roll Beyond Coal” press tour of Texas coal plants. This tour has seen representatives from Public Citizen of Texas and Sierra Club travel across the state visiting communities which would be impacted by proposed coal plants and meeting with local organizations. This was all in a bid to support recent bold action from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the coal plant permitting process of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and to request that the EPA take further steps to create a moratorium on the permitting or operation of any new coal-powered plant (Texas currently has 11 in either the pending, permitted or under-construction phase).

The crux of the matter is the discrepancy between the TCEQ permitting standards and the Federal Clean Air Act. The TCEQ is responsible for the permitting process of coal plants in Texas. For some time now the TCEQ has been issuing what it calls ‘flex permits,’ which essentially allow individual polluters to emit over the limits of the Federal Clean Air Act, as long as the aggregate pollution of an umbrella of regional sources is below the allowed level. In summation: “EPA ruling claims Texas’ air permitting standards are so flexible and record keeping so vague that plants can circumvent federal clean air requirements [emphasis added].” I suppose these ‘flex’ permits are aptly named.

Here are some of the steps the EPA should take as it reviews the relevant TCEQ policies over the coming months (taken from the Texas Sierra Club web site, where you can take action and contact the EPA):

3

1) Halt any new air pollution permits from being issued by the TCEQ utilizing the TCEQ’s current illegal policy.

2) Create a moratorium on the operations of any new coal fired power plants in Texas until the TCEQ cleans up its act by operating under the Federal Clean Air Act.

3) Require companies to clean up their old, dirty plants – no exemptions, no bailouts, and no special treatment by reviewing all permits issued since the TCEQ adopted its illegal policies and require that these entities resubmit their application in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act.

(Read this blog concerning plans to “grandfather” Texas coal plants, where you can also contact Texas senators about these issues)

The tour visited communities in Waco, Dallas, Abilene, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, Houston, and concluded today in Austin. The travelers included a giant coal plant float and local protestors at each site, attracting much local media attention. I’ve included some of the media links below:

9/23: WFAA (Dallas)

9/29: Corpus Christi Caller Times

9/29: KRIS-TV (Corpus Christi)

09/30: KIII-TV (South Texas)

09/30: Houston Press

10/01: TheFacts.com (Brazoria County)

This is a long-overdue first step taken by the EPA, and it now needs to be followed by some decisive and bold action in the coming months.

J Baker.

Read Full Post »

Good News for Houston, Corpus Christi- So. California ports cut diesel emissions 80%!

Posted in Diesel, Energy, Global Warming, Toxics, tagged , , , , on October 7, 2009 |

Great news from the Edmunds.com Green Car Blog:

Southern California Port Pollution Drops Dramatically Under Clean-Truck Program

port-of-los-angeles.jpgA clean-trucks program at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in California has shown quick progress, with an 80 percent decline in diesel emissions expected by the end of 2010 — a year ahead of schedule.

“This is the most successful effort to clean a port in the world,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. “I mean, think about it. Nobody thought it was possible to retrofit 5,000 trucks in a year, and we’re at 5,500 and growing.”

So far, the program has reduced diesel truck emissions at the Los Angeles port (pictured) by 70 percent compared with 2007 levels, Villaraigosa said. Long Beach has seen similar results, according to Mayor Bob Foster.

The program is part of a larger effort to reduce diesel emissions at the port complex, one of the major sources of pollution in Southern California. Increased rates of cancer, asthma and other serious health ailments for area residents have been attributed to port pollution.

Villaraigosa and Foster unveiled the promising figures during a briefing at the Port of Long Beach on Thursday, when U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced $26.5 million in federal grants for clean-air programs throughout Southern California.

This is really great news for our port cities, whose dirty air is tied at least partially to the pollution from the ports.  Diesel emissions also contain black carbon particles, which can have a much greater effect on the climate than CO2, methane, or any of the other greenhouse gases.  Also, as a particulate, it can get lodged in your lungs and cause all sorts of respiratory ailments.  Cutting black carbon should be a major goal, and one which the Ports of LA and Long Beach seem to be tackling very well.

Farbeit from me to advocate that Texas ever in any way should try to be like California, (*smirk*) but this shows that specific programs designed to tackle specific problems can be very effective.

“LA and Long Beach Together– Now You Know You’re In Trouble…”

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen Urges Texas Court to Force State Air Agency to Regulate Global Warming Emissions

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 6, 2009 |

AUSTIN – Saying that climate change must be considered when new coal plants and other facilities are approved, Public Citizen today sued the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in the Travis County District Court to require the commission to regulate global warming gases. This case seeks to extend to Texas law the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts  v. EPA, which held that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must regulate it.

“Texas leads the nation in the emissions of global warming gases. If we were a nation, we would rank seventh in emissions among the countries on earth,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “The time has come for the TCEQ to take its head out of the sand and begin the process to regulate CO2 emissions from Texas sources. Because the agency will not do so on its own, we are seeking to have a Texas court order it to do so.”

In the past four years, 11 coal plants have applied for permits under the EPA’s New Source Review program, which requires companies to install modern pollution controls when building new plants or expanding existing facilities. If they were all to be built, they would add 77 million tons of CO2 to Texas’ already overheated air. Six permits already have been granted for plants that will produce CO2 emissions of 42 million tons per year. Another five are in the permitting stages, and they would add 35 million tons of CO2 per year.

The issue of global warming has been raised by opponents in permit hearings in all but one of the six power plant cases, but the TCEQ has said it would not consider global warming emissions in the permitting process. Beginning this month, hearings will begin on permits for the remaining five plants.

Texas law gave the TCEQ the authority to regulate climate change emissions in 1991. In May 2009, the Texas Legislature passed a series of laws that would give incentives for new power plants that capture carbon dioxide, allow the TCEQ to regulate the disposal of CO2 emissions, set up a voluntary emissions reduction registry and develop a “no-regrets” strategy for emissions reductions to recommend policies that will reduce global warming gases at no cost to the state and its industries.

Smith noted that the TCEQ is undermining even the inadequate mitigation strategies that several coal plant builders are proposing. The NU Coastal plant promised to offset 100 percent of its CO2 emissions, but the TCEQ refused to make that promise part of the permit. Tenaska is promising to separate 85 percent of the carbon it emits, but it is not in the draft permit from the TCEQ. The Hunton coal gasification plant will separate 90 percent of its CO2, but the TCEQ classified it as an “experimental technology” so it wouldn’t set a precedent for other coal plant applications. NRG is promising to offset 50 percent of its emissions.

“Without the TCEQ putting these limits in the permits, there will be no guarantee that the power plant builders will keep their promises,” Smith said.

“The TCEQ steadfastly refuses to allow any discussion or consideration of CO2 or climate change issues during permit proceedings,” said attorney Charles Irvine of Blackburn & Carter, who is representing Public Citizen in the case. “The State Office of Administrative Hearings administrative law judges have deferred to TCEQ’s position that CO2 is not a regulated pollutant and therefore not relevant during contested case hearings. As a result, all evidence and testimony submitted on these issues has been repeatedly stricken in multiple coal plant cases. We now ask the court for a declaratory judgment to force the agency to follow the broad mandates of the Texas Clean Air Act and recent Supreme Court decisions.”

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts  v. EPA recognized that CO2 is an air pollutant within the definition in the federal Clean Air Act. Public Citizen contends that the Texas Clean Air Act’s definition of “air contaminant” similarly must include CO2. Specifically, the state law says that:

“ ‘Air contaminant’ means particulate matter, radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those items, produced by processes other than natural.” [Texas Health and Safety Code § 382.003(2)]

“So any gas created by non-natural processes – including CO2 generated by a power plant – under the plain language of the definition is an air contaminant,” Irvine said.

The lawsuit is can be read in full here.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., with an office in Austin, Texas. For more information, please visit .

Read Full Post »

Green-up your life! Oct 1- Eat less meat.

Posted in Consumers, Global Warming, tagged , , , , on October 1, 2009 |

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is going to be one of our ongoing series on climate change and how we can all make a personal impact.  Since today is World Vegetarian Day, I think this is an appropriate way to kick things off.

With various climate change proposals circulating on Capitol Hill, and the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen right around the corner, we are all reminded that legislative action and global cooperation are needed in order to protect our planet. While it is the responsibility of our leaders to work out an effective agreement, we must not forget that normal people like us can also make a big difference in reducing greenhouse gases. The Green-up your life! blog series will discuss the many ways in which we can all make a difference, just by making small changes in the way we live. Today, it is about what’s for dinner.

Many discussions about climate change are full of scientific jargon and are political in nature, making them hard to follow. We hear about increasing wind and solar power, implementing cap and trade, and reducing industrial carbon emissions. For those of us who want to personally contribute to the effort, we might switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, or install solar panels on our homes. In addition to these large (and sometimes expensive) personal changes, there are many little things we can all do on a daily basis to make our planet healthier. One thing we can all do to decrease global warming is not always on the top of the list: eat less meat and dairy.

So, does the agricultural industry really contribute that much to climate change? Yup. Meat production accounts for a whopping 18% of total global greenhouse emissions–more than all forms of transportation put together. About 9% of anthropogenic (read: derived from human activity) carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to agriculture. In addition, methane, the smelly heat-trapping gas emitted from both ends of livestock, warms the world 20% faster than carbon dioxide. Almost 40% of methane in the U.S. is generated from enteric fermentation (which takes place during a ruminant animal’s digestion process) related to animal husbandry. Beyond carbon dioxide and methane, agriculture is responsible for ­65 % of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide only accounts for 5% of total greenhouse gases, but has heat trapping effects 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. More than 37% of the earth’s land is used for agricultural purposes, and as the global demand for meat increases, the creation of more grazing land is a major contributor to deforestation, especially in Latin America, where 70 % of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, with the remaining 30% largely used for growing feed crops.

Beef is the largest culprit, but there are similar stories for all farm animals, including seafood. There is no doubt that agricultural practices contribute to global warming, both directly through emissions created from all levels of production, and indirectly through deforestation. Beyond this, it is just plain inefficient (as tasty as it might be) to get our calories this way. While most grains, fruits, or veggies require 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to create 1 calorie of food, this ratio grows up to 80:1 for beef!

When breaking bad news, honesty is the best policy. Nobody really wants to hear it, (and the agricultural industry most certainly doesn’t want to tell it), but as responsible stewards of our planet, and as daily consumers of food, one of the best things we can do is to eat less meat and dairy products. (Cutting down just on meat, but not dairy, will not make a big difference, because dairy cows burp and produce manure too). The silver lining is that what is better for the earth is also better for our health. Studies show that veggie-based diets decrease the chance of suffering from numerous types of cancers, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. When we do choose to eat meat, buying from local ranchers who raise pasture grazing livestock will ensure that we are limiting our impact on the earth. It appears more expensive to buy meat this way – but not when all the hidden costs are accounted for.

Nobody is asking that we all take up a diet of strictly brussels sprouts and brown rice, but if we all spend a little more time learning about the impact that our food systems have on the planet, a greener diet may just start to look more appealing. Stay tuned for next time, when, sticking to the topic of food, the importance of purchasing organic products will be discussed.

Read Full Post »

Boxer and Kerry take two steps forward and two steps back on climate, but EPA looks ready to go!

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 30, 2009 |

This just in from EPA:

LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.

The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.

UPDATED: that text is now available here.

“Wow” would be an understatement.  This on the heels of the release of Senator Kerry and Boxer and their climate bill.  Here’s my statement on that subject:

Sept. 30, 2009

Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Discussion Draft

Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

The Boxer-Kerry draft includes some important measures to address climate change and create new green jobs, but it is simply not sufficient to solve climate change or create the green jobs revolution we need. While an improvement in some ways over Waxman-Markey and its billions in giveaways to polluting special interests, the discussion draft put forth by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) still punts on many of the most contentious issues, such as how and to whom emissions allowances will be allocated or auctioned. Waxman-Markey started off similarly strong and vague but was weakened as it went through the committee hearing process. Sen. Boxer must work to strengthen the bill as she guides it through her Environment and Public Works Committee hearings.

The discussion draft calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution from 2005 levels by 2020. This is a slight improvement over the 17 percent called for by Waxman-Markey, but is far short of the goals our best science tells us we need to make. Specifically, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in order to avoid the worst of global climate catastrophe, we need to cut our pollution levels 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Japan will cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020; the EU has signaled it may meet or beat that goal. Why would we set ourselves to lag behind the rest of the world? We must win the technology races in manufacturing advanced energy technology so we do not replace importing oil with importing solar cells.

The draft should be applauded for including strong language to protect consumers and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions in the future.

Among the changes we recommend to the draft are alterations to address these problems:

Allowances should be auctioned 100 percent. President Obama’s budget continues to show revenues from a 100 percent auction and EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey found this to be the least regressive method of implementation.

Subsidies for nuclear should be removed. Despite recent findings by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff that the United States will never need to build another traditional power plant, the bill spends considerable space on (Subtitle C, Sec 131) and would allocate significant resources to nuclear power. Nuclear is neither as carbon-free nor as safe as the draft language claims. Neither is it cost-effective. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated half of all federal loan guarantees for nuclear loan guarantees will fail, meaning any extension of these guarantees is a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry leaving the taxpayers on the hook for up to half a trillion dollars.

The draft still relies on more than two billion tons in offsets – actually expanding permitted offsets from the Waxman-Markey language. This has huge potential consequences. It means that despite the intent of the draft, we could conceivably end up having failed to reduce emissions at all – and with major questions about whether alleged offsets were even achieved. While the offset oversight language is considerably better than in Waxman-Markey, it still is troubling that we are relying on offsets rather than actually decreasing our pollution.

The draft does nothing to improve vague language in Waxman-Markey, which could effectively grandfather more than 40 proposed coal-fired power plants, including up to a dozen in Texas alone. These proposed plants would be exempted from new performance standards in the bill, while a plant built just three years from now will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half.

With Kerry-Boxer maintaining EPA’s right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, this sets the table nicely to try to get a bill passed which will both solve climate change and create the new energy economy we need.  We just need to improve the ground of the special-interest-riddled Congress.  Tip of my hat to Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman for their articles on this earlier this week about the severity of the problem that faces us and the relatively lame responses by our government.  As a palate cleanser, please to enjoy this 15 second video from [adult swim] about what the REAL problem may be:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAUnjhB7l4]

Read Full Post »

Dallas Journalist Shares “6 things economists wish journalists knew about greenhouse gas reduction”

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on September 28, 2009 |

Dallas Morning News journalist Elizabeth Souder shares the Six things economists wish journalists knew about greenhouse gas reduction on the DMN’ Energy and Environment Blog.  They sound a lot like the 6 things EVERYONE should know about greenhouse gas reduction, so I thought I’d share them.  Kudos to Elizabeth Souder, and be sure to keep up with her work on the Energy and Environment Blog.

I’m attending the McCormick Energy Solutions Conference for journalists this week at Ohio State University. Andy Keeler, an economist with the John Glenn School of Public Affairs here at the university, offered six things journalist should know about greenhouse gas reduction.

1. It makes economic sense to reduce greenhouse gases. Even though doing so costs money, it will end up costing us even more if we do nothing. Dealing with the effects of global warming, of seeing Texas and the Southwest become a dustbowl, could be financially devastating.

2. Cap and trade, which is the method Congess is considering to regulate greenhouse gases, does two distinct things. By issuing tradable allowances for greenhouse gas emissions, the system raises the price of energy produced from greenhouse gas-heavy fossil fuels. It also generates revenue for the government by selling those allowances, and the money can be used for anything.

“Criticism of cap and trade which mixes these two together is deliberately misleading,” Keeler said.

3. Cap and trade creates broad and efficient incentives. Using market signals as part of our response to climate change risk is good public policy.

4. Who gets the money the government makes by selling allowances is a public expenditures question, not an environmental question.

5. A carbon tax and a cap and trade program have strong similarities. But the details of the program are more important than the choice between the two.

Keeler concludes that, even though economists tend to agree that a tax is cleaner and more elegant than a system of trading allowances, the current bill includes reasonable goals. Therefore, rather than starting from scratch and renegotiating the cap, which leads to a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80 percent cut by 2050, Keeler prefers to stick with the current bill.

6. Trade and competitiveness concerns exist, but are neither broad nor large. The bill could have significant effects on the iron, steel, aluminum, cement and paper industries, but those problems could be solved with targeted rules, rather than broad regulations.

“It’s not to belittle the problem for people in these industries, but it’s misleading to cast it as an overall disaster from a trade point of view,” he said.

Read Full Post »

Oppose the Murkowski Amendment and Support the EPA’s Authority to Curb Global Warming

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on September 23, 2009 |

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has circulated a draft amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill—the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual spending bill—calling to prevent the Agency from regulating stationary sources of greenhouse gases, despite a mandate from the US Supreme Court two years ago to do just that.

The amendment would ignore worldwide scientific consensus that indicates carbon dioxide emissions from both stationary and mobile sources as a major threat to public health and welfare.  Logic, science, and the law agree!  Global warming pollution from power plants and oil refineries is just as harmful as that from cars and other passenger vehicles.  According to major scientific bodies, such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions—no matter what its source may be—are warming the planet, as well as threatening public health and the welfare of our citizens.

Furthermore, the Murkowski amendment would severely undermine the Clean Air Act’s provisions to protect public health and the environment.  Oil refineries and coal plants are among the biggest global warming polluters in the nation.  The amendment would let these big players off the hook, delaying any momentum our nation has in transitioning to sources of clean energy.  If the amendment is rejected, our ongoing shift toward solar and wind energy will drastically benefit our nation, providing a continuous and cleaner supply of energy that will only get cheaper over time, while creating millions of clean energy jobs.

The United States is the single largest producer of harmful gases, with China and India following closely behind. China has even surpassed the US at times in CO2 emissions, although with the current economic recession it’s tough to know who is winning, or should we say losing, the carbon pollution race. Our nation alone contributes nearly 25 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions each year. It is feared that the amendment would make a loud statement heard across the world; one that says the U.S. is not serious about reducing and controlling its global warming pollution, giving developing countries a ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to reducing their own carbon emissions.  This could be devastating to international negotiations slated to take place in Copenhagen in December to create a framework to follow up to the Kyoto Protocol.

Lastly, the Murkowski amendment could inevitably prevent the EPA from preparing to implement climate legislation.  The Agency would be prohibited from collecting information and expertise it may need to effectively implement climate change legislation, such as the carbon-capture-and-sequestration bonus allowance program, free allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers, or early-offset programs.

If Murkowski gets her way, we could see a vote this week.  This is the wrong message for our Senators to send, who should not be trying to overturn a Supreme Court ruling and impede international climate negotiations through dirty tricks playing with the budgets of federal agencies.

Click here to see a general action alert by the Sierra Club and more reporting on this by the New York Times.

Read Full Post »

Tell Texas Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson Not to Grandfather Coal Plants in Texas

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 20, 2009 |

In 1977 Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act that provided exemptions to existing coal plants, allowing them to ignore the new emissions standards any new plants would have to adhere to. It was thought these plants would simply age and be retired quickly, but because these plants suddenly became much cheaper to operate (due to not having to meet stricter standards) the companies who owned them kept them operating for as long as possible. It wasn’t until almost 30 years later, in 2003, that this “grandfathering” loophole was finally closed and all plants had to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Now that global warming legislation is on the horizon, there is a new rush to build an entire new fleet of coal plants throughout the country. The hope is to get similar “grandfathering” provisions into any climate change legislation so that these brand new coal plants (some already being constructed) will not have to adhere to the new CO2 emission standards. Already, language in the American Clean Energy and Securities Act has been added to try and exempt any plants from the new standards if they receive their permit before January 1, 2009. The new standard, as it is now in the pending legislation, would require all qualifying plants to reduce their CO2 emissions by half by 2025. If the current fleet of new plants being built across the country are grandfathered this will result in massive amounts of CO2 added to our atmosphere that would otherwise have been mitigated. The new plants in Texas alone (which has more coal and pet coke plants proposed than any other state), if grandfathered, would end up emitting about 38.5 million tons more CO2 every year that they would if forced to adhere to the new emission standards.

There is no reason why any of these modern plants being permitted and built today should be exempt from modern CO2 emission controls, especially when there are plenty of alternatives such as energy efficiency and renewables that can meet this need. These coal companies are simply trying to slip in under the wire and evade responsibility for their emissions. The people of Texas call upon Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn to not vote for or allow any provisions in any CO2 or climate change legislation that would allow such grandfathering of this new fleet of coal plants.

Please go to the following sites to email the senators. You can simply copy and past the following brief statement, put it in your own words, or both:

Dear Senator,
The American Clean Energy and Securities Act is intended to address the grave threat of global warming. To do this it is setting new emissions standards for CO2 releases from industrial power plants. There are currently exemptions, however, that would allow new plants being permitted and built today to escape these new standards, effectively “grandfathering” them similar to the way that existing plants were grandfathered under the Clean Air Act in 1977. There is no reason why plants being permitted and built today should not be held to the new emission standards. Please do not vote for, or allow to be added, any provisions or exemptions that would allow grandfathering of these plants.

To email Senator Cornyn go here.

To email Senator Hutchinson go here.

Read Full Post »

Texas Progressive Alliance Weekly Round Up

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 14, 2009 |

With the start of the new football season, the Texas Progressive Alliance invites you to read this week’s roundup of blog highlights in the voice of John Facenda.

Last week, Texas got some much needed help from the Feds when the EPA slapped down Governor Perry’s global warming denier pick for our state’s top environmental official. This week, the EPA will have another opportunity to intervene in Texas when Mayor Calvin Tillman releases an environmental study of air quality in DISH, TX that will contrast dramatically with industry findings. Keep watching Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS as TXsharon brings you that news.

Bay Area Houston has some pics from the Yes we Klan! teabaggers on parade in DC.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that editorial boards across the state are taking Rick Perry to task for running Texas like he owned it.

Mean Rachel asks “Since when do conservatives care about anyone dying?” in “Dare Devils: Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Death Panel.”

Off the Kuff takes a look at a local race that found a hole in our state’s Elections Code.

Justin at Asian American Action Fund Blog writes about the right wing’s War on Diwali.

BossKitty at TruthHugger notices headlines this week demonstrate America’s decline in common sense or accountability. Even worse, there is no regard for consequences of thoughtless actions … Sabotage Experts: US Coast Guard Exercise on 9/11, Congressman Baucus and Republicans.

Neil at Texas Liberal ran a video he shot in front a hurricane damged fishing pier in Galveston in which he asked people to be flexible of mind. The video is 48 seconds long.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson on Sen. Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) making if official that he won’t seek reelection, and what that means going forward, Ogden will not run for Senate in 2010.

McBlogger offers another post on wage growth. Not terribly exciting, but it is hella important to the future of Democracy. So, you know, you might want to read it.

A couple of Kinky Katz could wind up at the top of the 2010 Texas Democratic ticket, according to PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Read Full Post »

Casual Friday Video Round Up

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , on September 11, 2009 |

It’s raining, its poring, and its Friday… so let’s stay inside and watch Youtube videos about action on climate change!

Clean Energy Works national television ad, “Waste.”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0RtSQFld48]

“Get Past the Old Lies”, Environmental Defense Fund:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB_B5k5ux1Q]

“Cursing Cap”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpniCBk0lao]

“Goldfish”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZy0Rd1M0wo]

Read Full Post »

Casual Friday Video Roundup

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on September 4, 2009 |

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB_B5k5ux1Q]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1OTya-pvQY]

And because we won’t stop til we get enough…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_397CFbewkg&feature=player_embedded]

Read Full Post »

Texas Progressive Alliance Weekly Round Up

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 31, 2009 |

round upIt’s the week before Labor Day, and the Texas Progressive Alliance is hard at work bringing you the best of the Texas blogosphere. Here are this week’s highlights.

The Texas Cloverleaf wonders why only one person showed up to a budget meeting where taxes are being increased in Denton County. No tea bags left?

Neil at Texas Liberal offered the fullest extension of the back of his hand to opponent’s of Houston’s Ashby High Rise.

TXsharon wonders what Governor Perry is thinking to appoint a global warming denier as the highest environmental official in Texas at a time when polling shows Americans support Obama on reducing greenhouse emissions and when the EPA has just confirmed water contaminated with hydraulic fracture fluid. Maybe the question should be: Does Perry think?

South Texas Chisme wants you to know that Medicare is a PUBLIC heath care option. Ciro, stand up. Henry, wise up.

Bay Area Houston has video of Republican Pete Olson punking himself punked at his own town hall meeting while trying to use a sick kid for political gain.

Lightseeker over at TexasKaos insists that we not hold health care reform hostage to solving the Abortion Wars. See this and more in his posting, Abortion Wars, Health care and Private Enterprise.

Off the Kuff analyzed some policy papers from Houston’s leading Mayoral candidates, examining Gene Locke’s crimefighting plan, Annise Parker’s education plan, and Peter Brown’s energy plan.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts about The good news health care reform would bring to TX-31 and Williamson County.

Setting a date for the eventual US Senate special election is all about the MoFo, according to PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

This week, McBlogger asked a very good question… Why do we even care about Joe Lieberman?

Teddy at Left of College Station covers the Chet Edwards town hall on health reform live from the Brazos Center, and then shares his thoughts on the town hall, and why a vocal minority is against health care reform. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines: remembering Senator Ted Kennedy.

Read Full Post »

Citizens Win Right to a Hearing in Opposing South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 28, 2009 |

UPDATE: Safety panel hearing in the news: at the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News

Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project continues with another success. On August 27th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that the nuclear applicant, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), had failed to adequately analyze issues raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP.

“This is a major victory for those living in the South Texas Project region and throughout Texas,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition. “The decision recognizes that the South Texas Project reactor application is still inadequate, two years after it was submitted. We now have a case against the reactors that will move forward.”

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project. The ASLB Panel has ruled on 19 of the 28 contentions submitted and found that one of the contentions deserved further inquiry, giving Intervenors a case against the reactors. It is not known when a decision will be made on the remaining contentions.

“South Texas Project’s reactor application is seriously flawed.” said Mr. Eye. “They failed to analyze how a severe radiological accident or a major fire or explosion at any of the four units would impact the other remaining units at the site. This is a major omission and the issue should have been considered by STP.” The contention reads:

Contention 21 – Impacts from severe radiological accident scenarios on the operation of other units at the STP site have not been considered in the Environmental Report.

“A radiological accident at one unit could cause impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units,” said one of the Intervenors, Bill Wagner, a former STP Operations Supervisor. “How would operations at undamaged units continue in the event that the entire site becomes seriously contaminated? STP needs to address this.”

Water Issues Are Yet to be Decided

The ASLB panel delayed a decision on all nine of the Intervenors’ contentions that deal with water issues. The issues yet to be ruled on include: the build-up of radioactive particulate in STP’s Main Cooling Reservoir (MCR), increasing levels of groundwater tritium, the vulnerability of the MCR to flooding, insufficient limits on toxic discharges, reliance on dilution to achieve discharge standards, unregulated wastewater discharge, unevaluated reduction in groundwater supply for adjacent landowners, unevaluated reduction in surface water flow, and inadequate supplies of fresh water due to global warming impacts.

“Nuclear plants consume enormous amounts of water and are vulnerable to shutdown during drought and reduced river flows. The two proposed reactors would use over 23,000 gallons of water every minute.This is a real one-two punch. Not only would STP’s operations reduce water supplies for cities like Austin or San Antonio, but the plant might not even be able to operate if the Lower Colorado River has severely reduced flows from drought,” said Hadden. “These problems don’t exist for wind, solar and geothermal sources to generate electricity.”

“The current water shortages in our area are hitting us hard,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator and Chair of South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. “Livestock suffer since hay and other feedstuffs are in incredibly short supply and there is no grass left. We have personally spent over $5000 this summer having hay trucked in from other areas on semis and have gone deep into debt trying to keep the livestock fed and healthy. Everyone here is in the same situation, so selling off stock is not an option. Prices are at all-time lows due to the large number of producers who are dumping stock at the markets already.”

“Texas is in a Stage 4 drought and has been declared a disaster area. The Texas Department of Agriculture says there are no programs available to assist us,” said Dancer. “Granting more water to industry, especially nuclear reactors that consume vast quantities of water, is not an option. This drought and others to come may be even worse.”

When it comes to water, San Antonio and Central Texas citizens are feeling the pain as well. On Monday, the San Antonio Water System filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. Will San Antonio have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?

Large Fires and Explosions that Cause Loss of Coolant and Meltdown

On August 14th, the Intervenors filed seven more contentions regarding STP’s failure to comply with a new NRC fire safety rule which says each licensee must “develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire.” The NRC now requires nuclear plants to deal with explosions and fires that would occur from the impact of a large commercial airliner. STP claims that their submittal brings them in accordance with the new NRC rule. Intervenors and their expert argue the opposite in the contentions. However, the Intervenors’ contentions that argue STP has failed to meet the fire and explosion regulatory requirements, STP’s submittal, and related documents are considered classified by the NRC and are not available to the public.

The NRC has also recently adopted regulations that require all applicants for new reactor licenses, including STP, to complete “a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft.” After 9/11 the NRC did its own assessments of aircraft impacts using state-of-the-art techniques and “realistic predictions of accident progression and radiological consequences.” “This regulation recognizes that nuclear plants are vulnerable to air attacks with potentially catastrophic effects,” said Hadden. “Nuclear plants could become weapons if targeted by those who would do us harm.”

The full order can be viewed online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.

Read Full Post »

Houston Mayor and Senate Hopeful Speaks on Energy Security

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2009 |

While at Netroots Nation a few weeks back, I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel discussing climate change, Texas’ energy future, and energy security featuring Houston Mayor Bill White (you might have also heard he is running for US Senate).

Mayor White gave very measured, political answers. Throughout the panel, never did the words “Cap and Trade” leave his lips, but he did remain skeptical of anyone who claimed to have it all figured out and that their answer would be easy and painless. He also showed legitimate concerns about the impacts of renewable energy mandates done wrong on low-income consumers. As a representative from a consumer advocacy organization, it is refreshing to hear White’s commitment to protecting our most vulnerable even as we chart a new energy future.

Mayor White’s stated goals are to become more energy independent for basic security reasons and to be in control of our energy future. To do so, he maintains that we must reduce our pollution based on sound science, and do so in a way which does not burden low-income households. He proposes three main mechanisms to meet these goals:

  1. Cut the amount of fuel we use in vehicle travel without impinging on people’s ability to travel freely– specifically by increasing our efficiency per mile traveled.
  2. Cut the amount of energy consumed in buildings. Why drive up the cost of business by paying for electricity?
  3. Decrease the amount of power we get from coal and substitute that power with cleaner sources

Despite some skepticism, Mayor White certainly showed that our energy future could have our cake and eat it too, namely through increased efficiency in building codes, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and use of cost-effective renewables. See the edited video here:

[vimeo 6300204]

Public Citizen does not and would never endorse candidates. Even if we could, it’s hard to get an exact read on Mayor White and how he would act as the next Senator from Texas on the issue of federal climate policy — so even so we could offer little endorsement other than a candid analysis of his words and his record.

When asked off-camera about how he would vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the climate bill which passed in the House in June and due up for debate in the Senate over the next 2-3 months, he remained committed to energy efficiency but overall rather vague. White showed skepticism as to large long term goals rather than smaller but gradually increasing cuts in emissions. His version of the bill, he said, would have strong building code mandates, a renewable energy efficiency standard (which is it, Bill?) with a price cap on renewables to protect consumers, and change dispatch priorities to wean the nation off of coal fired power. He did not, however, indicate whether or not he would support implementing a federal cap on carbon dioxide emissions or the cap and trade mechanism.

This is a question likely to come up in the next few months when ACES comes to a Senate vote, and hopefully Mayor White will have a clearer answer prepared when that time comes. But if the final answer is no on ACES, would he have some specific policy solutions about how to improve the bill, or would he just cast the same “no way, never” vote that we’ll likely get from John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison?

That being said, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak so fluently about energy policy. Mayor White’s record on energy as Deputy Secretary of Energy stands on its own, as does his impressive work on making Houston a national leader on energy efficiency. We may still be uncertain as to where he stands on ACES, but we certainly know his feelings on energy efficiency both in word and deed – which is nothing to sneeze at.

Read Full Post »

WATCH: Inherit the Hot Air! The US Chamber of Commerce v. Science

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2009 |

The US Chamber of Commerce wants to put the science of global warming on trial.  Not only that, they themselves claim they want this trial to be similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial where a Tennessee teacher was put on trial for teaching evolution, made even more famous by the play and film “Inherit the Wind.”

Seriously?  SERIOUSLY?

Because the only way to respond to this is through mockery and derision (surely they can’t actually be serious?), we present to you:

INHERIT THE HOT AIR!!! (a comedy in 3 acts)

[vimeo 6282295]

We apologize for the numerous Saturday Night Live circa 1989 references (especially the somewhat obscure “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer“) and the blatant callbacks to Inherit the Wind, and also ask people to please NOT place plastic bags on their heads and inhale deeply.  No Andys were harmed in the filming of this video and I was able to breathe freely at all times.  I promise.

On a serious note, what the Chamber is trying to do is to overturn and stall a process which is well underway.  In 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is linked to climate change, and the EPA should regulate it under the Clean Air Act.  In compliance with this ruling, (and only after delays by the Bush Administration which kept this action from occurring), the EPA earlier this year presented an initial endangerment finding, the first step in allowing them to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  They then opened the finding for public comment, which could be sent in by writing, and also held public meetings in Arlington, VA and Seattle, WA to gather public input.

According to documents posted at the Wonk Room, the US Chamber’s main argument is that previous public comment periods have somehow “Tainted” the process and that only an elaborate show trial, orchestrated by them and by putting their junk scientists on the stand, can eliminate the “taint.”  (And you know, “Tainted Endangerment Finding” was one of my favorite 80’s songs.)

So, according to the Chamber, public comment is bad, but the opinion of big business and their sham scientists can remove the stain from input by the witless masses.

All of this seems far too much like the plot of a Coen Brothers (or Marx Brothers) movie.  These are serious times which require serious thought and reflection, not comical misdirection.  But like the Fool in King Lear, only through comedy can we confront the tragedy that surrounds us and point out the serious misdeeds taking place.  And this sham by the Chamber of Commerce is even more destructive, because as long as we keep endlessly debating “Is It Happening?” we will never get around to “How Do We Solve It?”

In the words of Stan Lee, “Nuff Said.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »