July 2018 - The President has instructed Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to bail out obsolete coal and nuclear power plants by raising electricity rates. A draft Energy Department plan exploits the Cold War-era Defense Production Act and Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to force grid operators across the country to buy electricity from failing coal and nuclear plants. The Defense Production Act is an obscure wartime law that allows the president to secure scarce resources for national defense. There is, however, no case that failing coal and nuclear plants are essential to military defense. The Federal Power Act, Section 202(c) allows the Energy Secretary to issue an “emergency run order” where potential shortages of energy are imminent. Grid operators, industry experts, and utilities, however, have repeatedly and forcefully stated that there is no energy shortage and no evidence of an emergency.
ACTION: Contact your Senators and Representative. Urge them to oppose this initiative, which would require American families to bail out obsolete coal and nuclear power plants. Such initiatives would prop up polluting, dangerous, and expensive sources of power while disadvantaging efforts to provide clean, cheap, renewable alternatives.
Contact Your Representative and Senators:
Web: Find their names and links to their websites at senate.gov, www.house.gov; send an email or leave a message via ‘Contact’ on his/her website
Tel:202 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard-ask for his/her office & leave a message)
Mail: Senator or Representative (first & last name) S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 or U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515
Multiply this Message: Use this information to write a letter to the editor about this important & timely issue. This is a powerful way to educate and mobilize others—our job now & in the coming years!
October 2015 - You may have seen the pictures of the shockingly garish bright yellow water in the Animas River in southern Colorado following the spill of 3 million gallons of heavy-metal contaminated water from the Gold King mine on Aug. 5. Ironically, the spill occurred as the EPA was attempting a cleanup.
The law governing who pays for the clean up from this spill dates from 1872, a time when the paramount goal was to extract gold and other metals to stimulate our nation’s economy with little regard for pollution and cleanup costs.
We now have over 500,000 abandoned mines, polluting about 40% of the headwaters of the Western watersheds. And the West has very little water to spare!
To pay for future mine spill cleanups, a bill has been introduced in the US House, HR 963, that will impose an 8% charge on all new "hard rock" mines on public lands, and a 4% charge on existing mines on public lands. This is similar to currently existing laws regarding coal mines.
Ask your Representative to co-sponsor HR 963, this vastly overdue and much needed bill. There is simply no good reason that the American taxpayer should be stuck with paying for these very expensive mining pollution cleanups.
Telephone: (202) 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard) Mail: Senator or Representative (first & last name) U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510 U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515
June 2013 - "All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the US have a safety problem that cannot be fixed." So said Dr. Gregory Jaczko, former Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), at the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Conference on April 8, 2013. A most astonishing and unsettling statement! He further said that while it is impractical to shut them all immediately, certain "band-aids" must be used in the meantime. Two issues stand out.
1. During the Fukushima disaster, pressure built up in the reactor containment vessels, threatening to explode them; the operators were reluctant to open their safety vents because that would release intense radiation into the general population. In response, Japanese and European reactors are now required to have radiation filters on vents. In the US, the NRC caved to industry cost concerns, despite its staff's recommendations to demand the filters.
2. After 18 months in the reactor, the "spent" fuel is removed, hot and radioactive, and stored in a cooling pool. Any ongoing interruption of cooling water could trigger a fire, releasing intensely radioactive material, as happened in Japan. In the US, fuel assemblies can be packed in 4 times as densely as in Japan, increasing the danger. After 5 years, they should be removed and placed into "dry cask storage". To avoid the costs of dry cask storage, industry wants the fuel assemblies moved to "Interim Storage Sites". Imagine the dangers of radioactive spills and theft for bomb making, if this fuel were traveling on trucks and trains!
Alert your Representative to these serious risks, and ask him or her to urge the NRC to demand radiation filters on all containment vessel vents, and dry cask storage for all fuel rods after 5 years in the pool. Consider mentioning that you're ... miles from ... nuclear power plant. (Search, "US nuclear power plants" to find the one nearest you.)
A 53,000 tonne Leiv Eiriksson oil rig off Greenland's coast. Photograph: Steve Morgan/AP Photo/Greenpeace
On September 16 this year, Arctic sea ice fell to its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979. The previous record, set in 2007, was first broken on August 16 this year and continued to be surpassed as the melting season progressed.
This year’s melting record was different from 2007’s, however, as no unusual weather patterns contributed to the melting. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), “[in] 2007, winds and weather patterns helped melt large expanses of ice”. In response to the absence of unusual weather patterns in helping to set the new record, NSIDC Director Mark Serreze said, “It looks like spring ice cover is so thin now that large areas melt out in summer, even without persistent extreme weather patterns”.
To put this record in perspective, the average sea ice extent for the month of September was 3.61 million square kilometers, slightly more than the daily minimum record (set on September 16) of 3.41 million square kilometers, and a whopping 3.29 million square kilometers below the 1979 to 2000 average.In only three to four decades, Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by around half, a drastic and frightening decrease. In addition, the record low continued the downward trend in arctic sea ice scientists have observed over the past 33 years, which they attribute mostly to warming temperatures caused by climate change. According to the NSIDC, “[s]ince 1979...Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 13 percent per decade.” The effects of this continuing decrease in sea ice will be seen in ever-increasing global temperatures, as the summer sea ice reflects sunlight, thereby moderating global climate.
The Arctic has seen a decline in multi-year ice, or ice that sticks around for more than one year. As NSIDC scientist Walt Meier puts it, “[the Arctic ice] is becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer”. Furthermore, as the NSIDC reports, “[r]ecent data on the age of sea ice, which scientists use to estimate the thickness of the ice cover, shows that the youngest, thinnest ice, which has survived only one or two melt seasons, now makes up the large majority of the ice cover” (NSIDC).
Age of Arctic Sea Ice From '83
So, what does this mean for the Arctic’s future? Well, for one thing, with an ice-free summer, the Arctic, which holds an estimated 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, is ripe for exploitation by oil companies. Shell is an example of such exploitation. It secured a drilling permit in the Alaskan Arctic a few years back, and this summer it began drilling exploratory wells in the Arctic waters off of the Alaskan shoreline. BP as well has plans to drill in the Alaskan Arctic, and the Shtockman consortium has created a plan to exploit a gas field in the Russian Barents sea.
All is not lost, however. Shell, which began drilling exploratory wells in the Alaskan Arctic has run into numerous problems, both technical, involving equipment, and regulatory, involving permits and oil spill response plans. On Monday, October 1, Shell announced that it would be postponing drilling efforts until summer 2013, due to technical setbacks in their oil spill response equipment. Similarly, BP has suspended its efforts as well due to cost and technical problems (Reuters).
The conclusion that can be drawn from these cancellations is that exploiting oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic is just too technically difficult, cost-intensive, and ultimately, too dangerous environmentally for the fragile Arctic ecosystem. Oil companies will likely not admit to this, however, until a major environmental disaster occurs in the form of an oil spill or other catastrophe. The Obama administration isn’t doing much to help out either, giving Shell the go-ahead to drill in Arctic waters off of Alaska, though to their credit, it is under heavy regulation (Washington Post).
Concerns are being raised from a variety of sources, however. One group challenging Arctic drilling is a group of six Democrats, including Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), who wrote in their letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar: “Challenges with infrastructure and spill response are unprecedented in the Arctic’s remote, undeveloped region. The Arctic Ocean is characterized by hurricane-force storms, 20-foot swells, sea ice up to 25 feet thick, sub-zero temperatures and months-long darkness … In the event of an oil spill, the response may be too slow, and irreversible damage to ecosystems and species could result.” A British parliamentary committee also spoke out against the drilling, recommending that more infrastructure for oil spill clean-up be put in place before proceeding with drilling (Washington Post).
Now, if you really stop to think about it, drilling for oil in the Arctic is the most preposterous indicator of our human folly in the era of global warming. After all, the melting of the Arctic was caused in the first place by burning oil, and now oil companies and governments wish to exploit the melting to drill for more oil. I can’t make this stuff up. As the founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, said: "There's no place on Earth where we see the essential irony of our moment playing out more perfectly than in the Arctic. Our response has not been alarm, or panic, or a sense of emergency. It has been: 'Let's go up there and drill for oil'. There is no more perfect indictment of our failure to get to grips with the greatest problem we've ever faced." (Guardian).
Now, you might be asking, “what can I do about this issue?” The answer is a lot. To start out with, Greenpeace is conducting a campaign called “Save the Arctic”, that aims to declare the Arctic a global sanctuary. All you have to do is sign a petition by providing your email, name and post code. Pretty easy, right?
Also, write a personal letter to your congressional representative, detailing the risks Arctic drilling poses to the fragile Arctic ecosystem and the entire world and asking him or her to do something about it. Also consider spreading the word by emailing Greenpeace’s “Save the Arctic” link or any other report on Arctic drilling and global warming (such as this one) to your friends and family, and ask them to spread the word as well. If you can tell just one more person about the situation in the Arctic, then you have succeeded!
Peter Suechting is an intern at 2020 Action. He is currently a sophomore attending Amherst College where he is pursuing an Environmental Studies degree. Recently, Peter worked on a Forest Service trail crew for three months, hiking the almost 80 miles of the South Warner Wilderness of Modoc National Forest in California.
The Energy and Commerce Committee voted 33-20 to pass H.R. 3548, the bill that would give authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the KXL pipeline. The legislation would require the FERC to approve the $7 billion project within 30 days if deemed safe.
Last week, our post about the Living Dead Pipeline explained why the Keystone XL isn't safe, smart, or profitable. The corrosive, toxic bitumen that would flow through the pipeline is a danger to people, drinking water, and Canada's pristine forests and local wildlife.
The Republicans want us to believe that the the pipeline would create jobs, but that is simply false. The project would, indeed, create some jobs -- perhaps a few thousand -- but they would be temporary, lasting only until the pipeline's completion. The project offers virtually no long-term jobs, as the pipeline does not increase capacity in existing refineries.
What's more, the pipeline allows for big oil companies to export the bitumen around the world from the Gulf coast. Since the point of export for this oil would technically be in international waters, the U.S. Treasury will not see a dime in taxes.
So, let's recap - House Republicans want to build a pipeline that would endanger American drinking water, prevent investment in real long-term jobs, and delay a transition to a clean energy economy just so Big Oil companies can export oil from Canada to foreign countries via the U.S., without paying a dime in U.S. taxes?
Clearly, the GOP is far more worried about campaign contributions from Big Oil than they are concerned about American safety and jobs.
Take Action
Tell the GOP they can't make the FERC their Yes-men. Say no to the KXL pipeline.
by: The EarthAction Team; Larry O'Connor, Christine Chung, and Alexandra Reissig
Environmental activists won a major victory as President Obama announced in November that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline will be delayed until after the 2012 elections. However, this decision only delays the threat - far from rejecting the proposal, the State Department released a statement saying that they will order a review of alternate routes for the pipeline that would avoid the Sands Hill region of Nebraska, home to the largest and most intricate wetland ecosystem in the United States. The debate over the XL pipeline is far from over.
Democracy Now! newscaster, Amy Goodman reported on Tuesday, January 31, that, “Senate Republicans have announced plans to introduce legislation allowing Congress to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, despite President Obama’s rejection of the controversial project. An analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund and 350.org found that the bill’s 44 co-sponsors have received a combined $22.3 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 1989. One Democrat has joined the Republican effort: Joe Manchin of West Virginia. TransCanada, the company behind the $7 billion pipeline, spent $1.33 million on lobbying last year.”
In an article posted Monday, January 30th, Brian Merchant, a reporter for TreeHugger.com identified four ways in which the Pipeline could be “lurched back to life”. The two most dangerous scenarios involve first, that the next payroll tax cut bill could include language that would explicitly state that the pipeline would be approved and second, that Joh Boehner could include a provision for approval into an upcoming infrastructure bill.
Last year it was the taxpayer-financed bank bailout. Now we’re on to the BP Gulf Oil Disaster bailout. While BP must pay for the cleanup itself, according to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP is liable for only the first $75 million in civil monetary damages, e.g. loss of income from fishing and tourism. BP may ‘choose’ to pay more, but they are not legally required to.
A similar situation exists for nuclear energy. In case of an accident, the Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of an individual company to $112 million, and of the industry as a whole to $11.6 billion, the rest again being left to victims and taxpayers. How big can the rest be? Well, the Chernobyl damages are estimated at $358 billion!
New legislation is needed to make the energy corporations liable for the entire cost of any civil damages that they cause. This will make the oil and nuclear companies more careful because their own money will be at stake, instead of cutting corners and bypassing regulations as we saw repeatedly in the Gulf disaster. It puts the incentive for responsible decision making in the right place. Ending this public subsidy of the oil and nuclear industries will also make wind, solar and other renewables more competitive.
This Month's Action:Contact President Obama
Urge him to take strong action on energy, as he did to push the health care bill over the line. Ask him to see that the civil liability limits of the oil and nuclear industries are abolished, so the companies themselves, not the taxpayers, pay for their disasters. Point out that this would be basic fairness, that it will increase safety, and that the resulting level playing field will give a huge boost to clean renewable energy.
Contact Information:
Telephone: 202 456-1111 (9:00 am-5:00 pm EDT) Online:www.whitehouse.gov/contact Write: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500
Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska is at it again. Last week, she blocked attempts to raise the ludicrously low cap on oil-company liability for catastrophes such as the Gulf of Mexico explosion and spill. This week, she's once again moving to stop the EPA from implementing one of our most successful environmental laws -- the Clean Air Act -- to curb global warming.
The EPA's recent common-sense finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health -- a finding years in the making and finally ordered as a result of a Supreme Court decision -- is the first step in actually implementing the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse pollution. We are likely to hear what environmentalists are calling Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act," in the Senate this week, which would reverse this gain and stop the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to curb global warming.
Coming just weeks after the explosion and ensuing oil spill that's threatening life in and around the Gulf of Mexico, Murkowski's aggressive move to gut the Clean Air Act is almost surreal. After all, only through rigorous limits on carbon pollution will we ever break our dangerous addiction to oil and end the needless damage to people and ecosystems that comes with offshore oil development.
As oil continues to gush into the Gulf, now more than ever we need to pull out all the stops to oppose Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act." Please take action today: Tell your senators you oppose the "Dirty Air Act" and that they should oppose all efforts to gut the Clean Air Act, whether standalone or included in climate legislation.
