Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘oil’

HPCC Says “No!” to Bomb Trains

Posted in Energy, Gulf Coast Ports, Oil by Rail, Transportation, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 18, 2016 |

HPCC-Dee-Blast-Zone-768x1024

Dee Arellano (t.e.j.a.s.) shows the oil train blast zone for East Houston.

The news of the fiery explosion of two trains in Panhandle, Texas broke as organizers in Houston were discussing how to reduce the high risks of accidents involving toxic trains in Houston. That day, June 28th, two trains collided, resulting in a fiery explosion, the presumed death of three workers and the hospitalization of another. The trains in Panhandle, TX, were fortunately not carrying crude. However, the collision and explosion reminded us of the importance of standing up for safety in rail transport during the Stop Oil Trains Week of Action, July 6th – 12th.

The Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC) kicked off the week of action on July 6th with a press conference and a community meeting to discuss the risks that we Houstonians face as a result of rail traffic within our communities. This was especially poignant as less than a week earlier, on June 28th, two trains collided near Panhandle, TX, leaving 1 employee injured and 3 employees presumed dead. Fiery and fatal incidents over the past few years have increased concerns around rail, public safety, and chemical security, and we shared our concerns with media (“Exigen a autoridades frenar la contaminación por el transporte de combustible” and “Crude-by-Rail Plummeting In Texas But Critics Insist Risk Of Accidents Remains“) and with community members. From our discussion, community members wanted to find out more information about exactly what kind of chemicals are transported through their neighborhoods to better understand the risks. The HPCC is taking a stand against oil trains because we are concerned with hazardous, flammable materials coming into the Houston area. Toxic trains put Houstonians at risk through the possibility of explosion and by polluting the air with cancer-causing diesel and other toxic gases, through collisions, and by trapping folks behind stalled trains. One person reported being trapped behind a train for 90 minutes! (more…)

Read Full Post »

Forward on Climate Rally – A Call to Activism

Posted in Climate Change, Energy, Global Warming, Tarsands, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 21, 2013 |

2013-02-17 Forward on Climate Rally on the National MallI have been a Public Citizen intern since January of this year.  As a Political Science graduate student, in both Undergraduate and Graduate studies I have been immersed in the political process and the theories behind the ideas that have formed our nation.  When I was a bit younger, I dabbled in political activism, with issues like civil rights and equal rights, which are still very near and dear to my heart.  But, I never took the plunge into becoming a full on activist.

Thursday, February 14th, I had the opportunity, through Public Citizen and The Sierra Club, to get on a bus with 48 other Texans and make the long trek to Washington D.C. for the Forward on Climate Rally.  I had been to D.C. several times before, but never for a cause.  Our bus departed from Austin, Texas and made stops in Dallas and Tyler.  At each stop, new people joined us.  Each person on the bus had their own reasons for engaging in this somewhat grueling 30 plus hour bus ride.  Each person was motivated enough to take time out of their schedule and commit to a less than comfortable ride on a bus to our nation’s capital.

In the early part of our journey, many people did not know each other.  Many of us were coming from different places geographically and in life.  As the hours wound on, conversation and ideas began to flow on the bus.  People began to relax and conversations began to percolate throughout the bus.  After the formalities, discussions began on why we were on this trip.  There were people directly affected by the Keystone Pipeline.  Others were concerned with climate.  Some were just champions of the Earth.  For quite a few of my fellow bus riders, activism was old hat.  Others, such as one older, retired gentleman, still were hesitant to call themselves activists.  Some were believers in the cause, but just there for the exchange of ideas and to observe.  But, within the varying reasons for attending the trip, a common thread was clear.  Something needs to be done about climate change.  That was something everyone could agree upon, regardless of what school of thought they were coming from.

As for me, when I got on the bus, I did not really know which one of these types I was.  Climate change has always been a concern to me.  I try to live a “green” life.  I knew the Keystone Pipeline was bad news from things I had read and heard, but I suppose that I was never mad enough to do anything about it.  For me, civil rights and related social issues had always been the most important…

As the trip wore on, we all began to become friends.  We shared experiences and ideas.  By the time we arrived in D.C., we were no longer a bus full of strangers.  There was a feeling that we were a team, and some of us had become quick friends.  Our group spanned many different generations and encompassed many different levels of involvement in the cause. 

Friday night and Saturday, through some downtime and tourism, the group continued to solidify.  Our bonding was increased through a night on the town and sightseeing, but the main event was yet to come.

Sunday, February 17th began by loading on the bus and heading to the Public Citizen D.C. office for breakfast and some interviews with a reporter.  Outside, the cold was biting, with a wind chill of 6 degrees.   As we prepared to depart for the National Mall, the excitement level was high despite a lack of sleep and the cold weather. 

2013-02-17 Forward on Climte Rally March on the White HouseWe arrived near the Washington monument to a sea of busses.  Hundreds of busses.  We arrived about an hour early, and there were people as far as the eye could see ready to participate in democracy.  The estimates of number of people at the Forward on Climate rally ranged from 35,000 to 50,000.  As the rally began, speakers began to deliver messages from many different points of view.  Some were directly affected by the pipeline, other were speaking of climate change and activism.  The excitement level of the crowd increased with every speaker.  The climax of the rally was the 10’s of thousands of us marching to the White House.  The street was packed from curb to curb all the way around the White House.  We now know that President Obama was playing golf with Tiger Woods and oil executives, so he did not see the awe –inspiring site of that many people united for our climate.  Everywhere you looked there were signs.  When you stopped to listen, you could hear chants that would begin with one person and end with a united crowd chanting in solidarity.  While marching around the White House, you almost forgot how cold it was. (It was really cold)  When we returned to the National Mall, I had a sense of accomplishment.  You could not help but feel that we had done something important, united together as a group as varied as any ever assembled.  People of different ages, races, economic backgrounds, and geographic locations; all united in for the planet.  It was then that something I should have realized all along dawned on me.  Climate change and human/civil rights are intertwined.  They are so deeply related, that it is almost hard to see the preverbal forest for the trees.  Without one, there cannot be the other.  It also dawned on me that this is the fight of our generation.  This is the legacy that we should pass on to our children and their children. Our Earth and our climate is intrinsically a human right.  If we do not take action, there may not be an inhabitable planet for future generations, which would be the greatest violation of human rights in our history.  Through the interactions on the bus, the speakers, the sights and the sounds, something that should have been painfully obvious to me was finally made clear.

We cannot be passive observers in this fight against climate change.  We cannot be passive observers in things like the Keystone XL, even if we think they do not directly affect us.  (It does)  The time to remain silent is gone.  It is time to call on everyone who knows these things are terrible to use their voice, their right to free speech, and the democratic process to put an end to this insanity.  The Earth cannot wait while we sit idly by and do nothing while corporations destroy her under the guise of “progress” and “economics.”  We need to stand up and let them know that we will not stand for irresponsible practices and violations of our planet.  We must activate to preserve our climate and Earth for future generations.  We must let President Obama know that we won’t stand for the Keystone XL. 

For me, it is now no longer an option to passively oppose what is going on.  Activism is now a necessity.   I would urge everyone to use their voice, stand up and be heard.    

               

 

     

Read Full Post »

Civil Disobeyer Faces 10 Years in Prison

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2011 |

In December of 2008 (interestingly the same month as the TVA Kingston Coal-Ash Disaster) a 27-year-old Tim DeChristopher repeatedly bid up 12,000 acres of land intended for oil and gas exploration to a nice, winning number of $1.79 million. The problem? He didn’t have $1.79 million.

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. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Tar Sands Oil’s Devastating Legacy

Posted in Air Quality, Energy, Global Warming, green jobs, natural gas, Renewables, Tarsands, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 24, 2010 |

Tar sands oil makes conventional oil look clean by comparison, as it produces 3.2-4.5 times more the carbon footprint than conventional fuel. If that weren’t bad enough cleaner fuels such as natural gas, which otherwise might be used to generate electricity, are wasted in the process of creating more dirty energy from tar sands. Tar sands oil is a type of bitumen deposited in a semi solid form whose extraction is an extremely energy intensive project. For every third barrel of oil extracted one has effectively been consumed by the process. The process of tar sands oil extraction has left vast tracts of land barren with little vegetation as it is strip mined; while only 10%, of what is excavated, is oil. While some water is recyclable, the remaining toxic water is diverted to the euphemistically named “tailing ponds”. There are 2.5-4 barrels of water dumped into these toxic lakes for every barrel of oil extracted. These toxic “ponds” are actually very large; some are even visible from space.

Needless to say these pools are quite harmful to surrounding ecosystems as well as ground water supplies. The land left behind from tar sands extraction is a barren wasteland lacking vegetation and dotted with these toxic waste pools. Not only is the devastation comprehensive, it is widespread. Tar sands extraction in Alberta, Canada is set to affect an area the size of Florida.

Pipelines bringing this dirty oil to the United States have already been built, but TransCanada, an extractor of tar sands oil, has proposed to expand the pipeline system. Part of the proposed expansion will link to a current pipeline in Oklahoma and extend it into East Texas and the Houston Bay Area so that it might be refined there. These refineries will require expensive additions to handle this heavy crude. The planned route crosses through Texas and Oklahoma over rivers, through national forests, and across private land. Landowners have been threatened with eminent domain if they do not comply with Keystone’s demands. Keystone XL clearly places finance over environmental safety as they applied for (then temporarily withdrew) an application for exemptions to the rules that would allow them to make the pipe thinner in rural areas and yet pump at above currently permissible levels. However, they may reapply for this “special permit” later as they seek lower costs at the expense of the public. We cannot allow this to happen. The social costs of tar sands oil production is far too high and the benefits far too small. The expansion of this extremely dirty energy undermines what progress has been made in cleaning America’s energy consumption. While we should be cultivating clean energy production, the dirtiest energy production is being expanded.

Keystone XL needs a presidential permit to build this international pipeline. This is a point of vulnerability. Throughout the summer Public Citizen has been organizing individuals and groups to attend various meetings, hearings, and conferences. The U.S. State Department has held public hearings on its Draft EIS and we have urged others to take the opportunity to raise their voice.

Our efforts at getting such groups together continue as we move further down the proposed pipeline into the Houston area, reactivating allies and making new ones as we work together to stop a pipeline that is proposed to travel near sensitive areas such as the Big Thicket National Preserve. This pipeline only adds to Texas’ clean air problems and by stopping it in Texas we can change the momentum on a rapidly growing dirty industry. Future infrastructure development should be dedicated to renewable, clean energy – not dirtier energy than what we already have.

###

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 »

Dirtiest Oil in the World to be Refined in Texas?

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Transportation, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on June 29, 2010 |

TransCanada, a pipeline company out of Canada, wants to build a pipeline to bring the dirtiest kind of oil in the world from tar sands mines in Alberta, Canada to refineries in Houston and Beaumont. This oil is many times dirtier than conventional crude and allowing Houston area refineries to process it would increase air pollution throughout the region. The tar sands mines in Alberta are devastating the Boreal forest ecosystem, laying waste to a region the size of Florida and poisoning the people who live downstream. The first permit this pipeline needs is the Presidential Permit, which goes through the State Department. The comment period on this project is open until July 2 – to submit comments online go here. For more information on tar sands oil visit dirtyoilsands.org and to stay updated on tar sands news in Texas keep coming back here to Texas Vox, and visit our main webpage on tar sands here. (more…)

Read Full Post »

On global warming, the science is solid

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 9, 2010 |

Last weekend professors and scientists from four major Texas universities joined forces to write an editorial in the Houston Chronicle defending the science of global warming from skeptics and deniers.  Check it out!

On global warming, the science is solid

In recent months, e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom and errors in one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports have caused a flurry of questions about the validity of climate change science.

These issues have led several states, including Texas, to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide (also known as greenhouse gases) are a threat to human health.

However, Texas’ challenge to the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide contains very little science. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott admitted that the state did not consult any climate scientists, including the many here in the state, before putting together the challenge to the EPA. Instead, the footnotes in the document reveal that the state relied mainly on British newspaper articles to make its case.

Contrary to what one might read in newspapers, the science of climate change is strong. Our own work and the immense body of independent research conducted around the world leaves no doubt regarding the following key points: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Fast Food Nation Frustration

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

burger1

For years fast food restaurants have been our nation’s go-to source for cheap, quick food we can eat on the run or take home to the family to avoid cooking dinner for the night.  I am betting that almost every person reading this blog has or will eat a product of the fast food faction at some point this week.  Well, thinking about our fan base…maybe not.  According to a 2004 study by the International Trade Leader, Americans are ranked number one when it comes to the purchasing of convenience meals—spending a total of $148.6 billion, more than our spending on higher education.  Among the top ten nations listed, the United States is responsible for almost two-thirds of the total spending on fast food meals.  Aside from the commonplace debate about whether to buy organic or conventional fruits or vegetables, there are an overwhelming amount of other choices made every day that can ultimately have both personal and global consequences.  What many people don’t realize is that our national diet may not only affect our waist sizes, but it may also lead to environmental, political, cultural, social and ethical repercussions.

People are now, more than ever, beginning to value those things in life that can be obtained fast, cheap, and easy—including the food we eat.  In the past five years, the fast food nation as we know it grew unexpectedly.  There is one major contributor, responsible for about 80% of this growth.  Two words: drive through.  Recently, our country has seen a rapid increase in the amount of drive-through lanes at fast food institutions.   More than half the money spent at fast food restaurants is received through a drive-through window from a customer tucked behind the steering wheel and hopefully a seatbelt.  Today, 90% of the 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants in the United States have a drive-through lane; Starbucks has picked up the pace and added drive-through lanes to many of their stores across the country; and one fast food business called Good to Go has 14 drive-through lanes at their Houston location alone.

Now, I would like to do something a little different here.  I am going to talk my way through a normal visit to a local fast food place—starting from the time you start your engine to the time you eat the last fry.

So, let’s say you are jonesing for a cheeseburger and french fries.  You decide to take a break from your television marathon and go to the nearest fast food joint to get some food.  You hop into your Ford Focus and drive about seven or so minutes to the restaurant (making the entire trip a total of 15 minutes, minus the time spent in the drive-thru lane).  It takes about 8000 litres of air, weighing almost 12 kg, to burn one litre of gasoline or diesel. Furthermore, for every litre of petrol you burn, you emit 2.5 kg of carbon dioxide.  Aside from carbon dioxide, our cars also emit carbon monoxide, lead and hydrocarbons while we are driving through the act of petrol combustion.  This has lead many to believe that driving a car is probably the most polluting act an average citizen can commit in their lifetime.  In recent years, emissions from passenger vehicles in the United States have increased thanks to the increase in vehicle usage and the nationwide preference for larger vehicles.  An average new vehicle in 2003 consumed far more fuel than its counterpart in 1988. So, what can you do?  Like Kirsten said in an earlier blog entry—drive less.  Both local and global pollution would be reduced if each car-driving person pledged to use their car 30% less starting immediately.

Since you just ran out of the house and you are still wearing your pajamas, you decide to order from the drive-through lane to avoid the embarrassment and save some time.  You pull into the line and notice four other cars in front of you—all burning around the same amount of petrol and releasing carbon dioxide into the air.  Many believe that avoiding the drive-through lane and parking your car is the greenest thing to do.  On the contrary, some researchers in Canada have claimed that a parking-only restaurant produces 20% more smog pollution and 60% more greenhouse gases than a restaurant with a drive-through lane due to the stopping and restarting of cooled-down vehicle engines.

Finally, you pull up to the speaker box and place your order—a cheeseburger with everything on it, an order of french fries, and a small coke.  When it comes to fast food restaurants, up to $1,000 a month can be spent on electric bills for one location alone.  Air conditioning and lighting account for 25% to 40% of the electrical spending, while refrigeration shares the majority with other expenses including powering the speaker box and indoor cooking appliances.

You drive forward to the drive-through window and wait patiently for your food.  One of the most overlooked energy users at fast food restaurants are the drive-through windows themselves. The window is oftentimes left open unnecessarily during the drive-through process, letting air-conditioned air escape.  The employee appears in the window and hands you your order.  Your total is $6.99.  You give them cash, they give you change, and you take a peek inside the paper bag to make sure everything is there.  You see your cheeseburger wrapped in paper and your fries sitting in its cardboard packaging, along with some napkins and a few packets of ketchup.  You grab your drink and take a sip of the coke from the straw protruding from the paper cup.  In general, fast food outlets are our country’s primary source of urban litter, which includes the paper, plastic, and Styrofoam packaging material.  The most abundant type of litter (not counting cigarette buds) is Styrofoam, which becomes a permanent fixture in our environment when littered.  Moreover, plastic is the largest source of marine debris.  In some areas of the Pacific Ocean plastic has become so concentrated, there is six times more plastic than there is plankton.  These materials from fast food restaurants have become a huge burden on the local communities.  Less than 35% of the waste from fast food businesses is diverted from landfills.  Every year millions of pounds of food packaging waste litter our roadways, clog our landfills, and spoil our quality of life.  Food packaging takes up 15% of landfills.  About three-fourths of all food packaging come from forests, with half of landfill waste being made of either paper or wood.  The Southern forests of North America supply 60% of United States and 15% of global paper demands. This demand for wood and paper products has led to deforestation, resulting in a total decline from 356 million acres in colonial times to 182 million acres today.

You give your thanks and drive off.  As you drive you start nibbling on some fries because they taste better when they’re hot.  In order to fry these delicious pieces of potato, fast food institutions use fryers, which ultimately requires a lot of oil and energy to operate.  There is now a new generation of fryers that supposedly allow restaurants to cook the same amount of product with approximately 40% less oil.  Furthermore, these low oil volume fryers use about 4% less energy than their standard counterparts.

Once you get home you turn the television back on and sit down to eat your meal.  You bite into your cheeseburger and slurp some of your coke.  According to the Economist, Americans eat as many as three burgers a week for a total of 150 burgers every year.  Believe it or not, the cheeseburger has its own footprint and global warming impact.  There is a ton of energy cost associated with a common cheeseburger, including what it takes to grow the feed for the cattle for beef and cheese, growing the produce, storing and transporting the components, as well as actually cooking the burger.  The total greenhouse gas emissions that arise every year from the production and consumption of cheeseburgers are roughly equal to the amount emitted by 6.5 million to 19.6 million SUVs.

Bon appetit.

This blog entry isn’t meant to scare anyone out of eating a cheeseburger or prevent anyone from going to a fast food restaurant.  It is meant to provide you with information on topics you may not know about, help you to open your eyes, and get you to think about the things you do everyday that can ultimately affect the world and the people around you.

Until next time.

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

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.

Read Full Post »

Hutchison Takes “Head in the Hot Sand” Approach to Climate Bill

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 10, 2009 |

Check out our editorial in the Round Rock Leader, in response to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s piece “Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas”:

A rebuttal to Sen. Hutchison’s piece concerning Cap and Trade policies

By ANDY WILSON

Special to the Leader

United States Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison takes a head-in-the-hot-sand approach to climate change that will get Texas burned and drive tens of thousands of new jobs elsewhere (“Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas,” Aug. 27 Leader).

She misses the mark on energy policy, using discredited industry statistics to drum up fear about a Cap and Trade policy that represents just a small portion of the initiatives proposed in the energy bill that passed the House of Representatives in July.

She fails to acknowledge that the bill includes provisions for renewable energy and energy efficiency – the real solutions to climate change.

Hutchison’s solution is no solution at all: more oil, more coal and more nuclear, with absolutely no coherent policy on how to lower energy costs and find alternatives to dwindling resources.

While America is faced with the worst economic crisis in generations, Sen. Hutchison is turning away opportunities to create new jobs while slavishly clinging to the talking points of the oil industry.

Families are hurting from high energy prices.

The answer lies in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, which have proven to save Texans money.

Even The Wall Street Journal reports that “Wind Power Makes Electricity Cheaper in Texas,” and families that have received energy efficiency retrofits from their electric utility save money every month.

In the dieting world, low-calorie treats never taste as good as their fatty counterparts, but in the energy efficiency world, both light bulbs burn just as brightly. That’s a pretty sweet deal.

If Sen. Hutchison is as worried about job loss as she professes, she should work to improve the anemic renewable energy and efficiency goals in the bill.

Texas, as the leader in wind power and home to a burgeoning solar industry, would stand to gain 153,000 of new green jobs by passing a strengthened and stream-lined bill.

Texas already has employed more than 9,000 individuals to build our current crop of wind turbines, representing just a drop in the bucket in terms of the green jobs that national clean energy policies could bring to our state.

Big polluters are trying to scare people with exaggerated costs of addressing climate change.

Independent analyses from the EPA and CBO show the actual price to Americans to be less than a postage stamp a day.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that strong action on climate change, including Cap and Trade, would save Texas families an average of $980 a year.

Opponents are concerned that Texas refineries are going to be hurt by this bill, but the House-passed bill provides more than $2 billion in free carbon credits to refiners.

How is about $2 billion in handouts to corporations not enough?

The oil industry is floating a red herring argument about sending competition overseas.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that gasoline imports will decrease under the climate bill due to slowing demand and fuel economy improvements.

Sen. Hutchison has received more than $2.1 million in campaign contributions from the oil industry during her Senate career, so her remarks may have more to do with giving back to an industry that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has been the largest single source of financing for her Senate campaigns.

If Sen. Hutchison really wants to do what’s right for Texas, she should strengthen the climate bill, rather than shoot it down.

If she is worried about price impacts on Texas families, she should strengthen consumer protections and strip out the billion-dollar in-dustry giveaways.

And if she’s concerned about Texas’ financial well being, she should remember that Texas above all else is an energy state – which means that we must have a future in clean, renewable energy as well.

But just saying “no” to a new energy bill, “no” to new jobs and “no” to new industries is “no good for Texas.”

Read Full Post »

The Influence of Energy Industry Contributions

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2009 |

US_House_CommitteeLast week we saw the Waxman Markey bill go to the Energy and Commerce committee. Watching the markup process increased my interest in the role special interest money plays in the political process.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is responsible for oversight in legislation concerning: telecommunications, energy, international commerce, public health, consumer protection and much more. The Energy Department, Health and Human Services, the Transportation Department to the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and Federal Communications Commission all fall under this committee’s jurisdiction.

Being that this is the committee that was given the responsibility of approving the Waxman Markey bill (the legislation that will determine our future energy policy); I was particularly interested in the amount of influence the energy industry had on shaping these positions of its members. The only way I could actually come close to measuring this is by looking at how much energy companies contribute to these candidates and how much their votes reflect the contributions they receive. As a control for this highly informal quasi-experiment I compared the contributions Energy and Commerce Committee members received from the energy industry the amount of contributions members of the Ways and Means Committee (which deals with taxation and welfare) received from the same industries. I limited this to congressmen who received $10,000 or more in contributions from energy companies during the 2008 election cycle.

I found that in the 65.52% of energy and commerce committee members received energy contributions above $10,000, while 58.53% of Ways and Means members received contributions above $10,000, during the 2008 campaign season. On average Energy and Commerce members received $53,972, while Ways and Means members only received $35,986, on average. The biggest recipients of both parties on the Energy and Commerce Committee got substantially more than their counterparts on Ways and Means Committee. In fact the biggest recipient on Energy and Commerce got $267,559 more than the largest recipient in Ways and Means. The Democrats in both committees received fewer contributions from these industries than the republicans, but the biggest recipient among Energy and Commerce Democrats, Louisiana’s Charlie Melancon, received $40,176 more than Charles Rangel the biggest Democrat recipient on the Ways and Means committee. It should be noted that a bigger percentage of Republicans on both committees received contributions above $10,000 in Energy Contributions. 100% of Republicans on Energy and Commerce received $10,000 or more while only 44% of Democrats did. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Take Action to Fix Climate Change Bill

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 22, 2009 |

As expected, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved climate change legislation last night and sent it along in the legislative process. We strongly urge lawmakers to make major overhauls to this bill or go back to the drawing board.

The problem? Oil, coal and nuclear industries had far too much say in its shaping, and it shows.

Now more than ever, Public Citizen needs you to tell your representatives that climate change legislation should not be weakened by the corrupting influence of big money.

Those who say this bill is the best the legislative process can produce are wrong: The American people demanded strong climate legislation, and polluters are subverting these goals.

Public Citizen supports strong, effective climate legislation, but this bill won’t achieve it. We can talk about hoping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, but this bill won’t do it.

It creates a legal right to pollute for industries and gives away credits for free to allow companies to meet those targets without having to pay for them. That is not going to spur the kind of investments we need.

We must act fast to influence lawmakers to fix this piece of legislation. Please take action so that our voices can be heard loud and clear over those of the oil, coal and nuclear industries.

For more information about the climate change bill and how it needs to be fixed, visit our Web site and watch Tyson Slocum explain Public Citizen’s position in an interview on Democracy Now!

Take action today, and let your representatives know you want them to put interests of consumers above those of the energy industries.

Read Full Post »

Houston’s Congressman Gene Green Another Swing on Climate Change Legislation

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 6, 2009 |

We’ve been putting a lot of effort into pressuring US Congressman Charlie Gonzalez to support a strong climate change bill, but according to an article in the Houston Chronicle this morning, Congressman Gene Green from Houston is another key swing vote on cap and trade:

A 17-year veteran of Washington politics known for his low-key style and behind-the-scenes approach to legislation, Rep. Gene Green has seen his popularity skyrocket in recent days — at least with lawmakers eager to write new climate change rules.

The celebrity status comes courtesy of Green’s role as one of a handful of moderate Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee. His support is crucial to advancing a sweeping energy and climate change bill.

Looks like Gene Green wants to vote for the bill, but won’t support it without some pretty significant concessions to industry.  Shocking.

The good news for Waxman, Markey and other proponents of the so-called cap-and-trade plan is that Green believes “the United States has to lead” in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The bad news? Green worries about the potential price tag for oil refiners along the Houston Ship Channel he represents.

“I’d like to vote for a bill,” Green said. “But I’m not going to vote for one unless I think it’s going to be good for the area I represent.”

Green has become the main lawmaker pushing for free allowances for refiners, as one of just four Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee representing states with big refining operations. The others are Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah.

In order to support the bill, Green wants to give away 5% of pollution permits to refineries for free, and hand over 40% of allowances to utilities.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, GIVING AWAY ALLOWANCES IS A TERRIBLE WAY TO WRITE THIS BILL.

As I wrote a few weeks ago in a blog post scolding Charlie Gonzalez on this same issue,

Charlie Gonzalez just doesn’t have his facts straight on this one. If you’re really concerned about consumers, giving away pollution credits for free is about the worst way you can write this bill. Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions. There is a right and a very wrong way to write a good climate change bill, and Charlie is supporting the wrong way.

EPA’s most recent analysis say that giving away pollution credits is “highly regressive”, meaning it hurts low-income families the most. At best, this is a bailout and a free ride for the polluters. At worst it will create windfall profits for huge energy companies at the expense of every lower and middle income family in Texas.

Whether Green can make this bill good for the area he represents depends on what he means by “area.”  If by “area”, Green is referring to his constituency, which is a majority-minority district made up of primarily low and middle income families, Green is going to have to think again.  Giving away pollution allowances to industry sells out working families.  It allows industry to jack up their prices without doing any real work to reduce their emissions and charge families extra for their “compliance costs”.

If this was just our opinion here at Public Citizen, you could dismiss it, but everybody agrees that giving away pollution credits for free hurts poor and working families.  Who?  Well, the Wall Street Journal, for one:

“There are a lot of things in the bill I need to have changed,” said Rep. Gene Green (D., Texas). Mr. Green, whose district is home to the largest petrochemical complex in the world, wants Mr. Waxman to give some pollution permits to oil refiners for free. “If that’s not in the bill, I can’t vote for it,” he said.

Refiners are lobbying to get for free 30% of the pollution permits, an amount that corresponds roughly to the share of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions produced by transportation fuel. Without such allowances, the industry says, it will lose out to refineries in India and the Middle East that ship their product to the U.S. and don’t operate under carbon caps at home.

“The electric utilities want 40%, and if they’re getting 40%, the refiners say ‘Why shouldn’t we get 30%?”‘ Mr. Green said. Mr. Green said he has asked Mr. Waxman to give the refining industry a smaller share of the allowances — roughly 5%.

Economists say generally that consumer prices will rise regardless of whether permits are given away for free, and that giving them away for free will divert money from other purposes in the public interest, such as tax cuts for consumers.

As we mentioned before, the EPA’s analysis showed that giving away credits was “highly regressive.” When both our government’s environmental agency and our nation’s top conservative-dominated-hard-headed-economist-driven-Australian-tycoon-run newspaper agree on something, there’s a consensus, people.

Ok– time to put on our tin foil hats for a moment– but one explanation these actions is that when Gene Green is talking about his “area”, he really means the five refineries and “more chemical plants than (he)  can count” inside his district.  Green received significant campaign contributions from both the Oil & Gas and Electric Utilities industries.  Check out the following chart from OpenSecrets.org:

genegreenchart

To put these numbers in perspective, Green spent a total of $860,643 on his last campaign.  Of that, $139, 949 came from the same folks Green is now trying to score free pollution credits.

If that weren’t enough, it looks like the refineries don’t even know their own business.  They claim that paying for carbon will hurt them and force refining to markets like China who aren’t regulating their environment.  Well, first, a new economic analysis shows that “Cap and Trade Won’t Push Heavy Industries Overseas”.  Second, on what planet does it make economic sense to pump oil out of Texas, ship it literally halfway around the world to China, refine it, and then ship it back?  You would need a PRETTY hefty price on carbon to make that economically feasible.  And lastly, China is beginning to implement export taxes on steel and other carbon intensive products, making it even more unlikely that refining would ever move there.

Bottom line: Green can’t have his cake and eat it too on this one.  He can either protect the families in his district by supporting a full auction of pollution credits that puts the revenue to work in renewable energy, energy efficiency programs, and rebates, or he can fill the pockets of polluters by demanding free carbon giveaways.

And, I do need to give Green some props– he is sponsoring the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a public financing system for Congressional campaigns, freeing him forever from having to raise money from the fossil fuel industries or other special interests whose views may not coincide exactly with the greater good of the people of the 29th congressional district.  We can only hope for such a world– we know Gene Green has to raise money for his campaigns, he certainly can’t get it from the working class people of his district, and we know that when special interests give it is not out of the kindess of their hearts but because they want access and influence.

Read Full Post »

Oil in the Arctic!

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , on July 24, 2008 |

We are like a child picking up sea shells on the exposed shoreline preceding a tsunami. Our eyes gloss over and the glint of the pretty thing shines in our eyes, and heedless of the gathering mountain of water we rush to gather as much as we can, ignoring the consequences of missing the bigger picture.

There is oil in the arctic, and it seems half the world is interested in getting it out of the earth (and into the atmosphere) as soon as possible. No one seems to care that the whole reason this oil is going to be accessible is because of global warming – caused in part by the very same fuel. For decades now we’ve been irresponsibly burning everything we can dig up, ignoring the scientists who have been warning us (for just as long) that this is going to have dire consequences.

Meanwhile, our amazing sun beats down its free energy all around us, in the form of direct solar and in the indirect form of biofuels. The wind continues to blow (mostly unharnessed), energy efficiency measures are minor and insubstantial, and geothermal and wave energy potential continues to be ignored by the energy companies.

In 1915, Nikola Tesla said “If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations.”

We are now addicted to fossil fuels, and like any addict with any addiction it will eventually kill us, unless we break the habit. The needed alternatives exist, but as long as we focus primarily on how to find more fossil fuels, the incentives to develop renewable energy resources will continue to be delayed. If we want any hope of continuing something resembling our current civilization we must abandon fossil fuels as soon as possible and replace them with renewables.

If not, the changing climate will give us a world in which our civilization cannot exist.

Read Full Post »