Temporary Break This Week; We're Back On June 18

WIMS is on break this week due to a family emergency.

 

We'll be back on June 18, 2012.

 

............................................................................................................................

Waste Information & Management Services, Inc. (WIMS), Since 1980
Newsletter Publishers: Michigan Waste Report; REGTrak; WIMS Daily; & eNewsUSA
Blog Publishers: eNewsUSA; Environmental - Appeals Court; Great Lakes Environment; & Environmental Federal Register

No. 1 Environmental Business Portal: EcoBizPort.com

Jeff Dauphin, President
767 Kornoelje Dr. NE, Comstock Park, MI 49321-9537
Phone: 231-408-2868

Appeals Court "Game Changer" On Nuclear Waste In NY v. NRC

Jun 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1045, 11-1051, 11-1056, 11-1057. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Appeals Court explains that four states, an Indian community, and a number of environmental groups petition this Court for review of a NRC rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The Appeals Court rules, "We hold that the rulemaking at issue here constitutes a major federal action necessitating either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant environmental impact. We further hold that the Commission's evaluation of the risks of spent nuclear fuel is deficient in two ways: First, in concluding that permanent storage will be available 'when necessary,' the Commission did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent storage -- a possibility that cannot be ignored.

 

    "Second, in determining that spent fuel can safely be stored on site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a plant's license, the Commission failed to properly examine future dangers and key consequences. For these reasons, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the Commission's orders, and remand for further proceedings."

 

    The Appeals Court further concludes, "We recognize that the Commission is in a difficult position given the political problems concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Nonetheless, the Commission's obligations under NEPA require a more thorough analysis than provided for in the WCD [Waste Confidence Decision] Update. We note that the Commission is currently conducting an EIS regarding the environmental impacts of SNF [spent nuclear fuel] storage beyond the sixty-year post-license period at issue in this case, and some or all of the problems here may be addressed in such a rulemaking. In any event, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the WCD Update and TSR [Temporary Storage Rule], and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

 

    New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the decision "a landmark victory." He said the decision means that the NRC cannot license or re-license any nuclear power plant, including the Indian Point facility in Westchester County, until it examines the dangers and consequences of long-term on-site storage of nuclear waste. He said the appeals court found that the spent nuclear fuel stored on-site "poses a dangerous, long-term health and environmental risk."

    Schneiderman said, "This is a landmark victory for New Yorkers, and people across the country living in the shadows of nuclear power plants. We fought back against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rubber stamp decision to allow radioactive waste at our nation's nuclear power plants to be stored for decades after they're shut down -- and we won. The Court was clear in agreeing with my office that this type of NRC 'business as usual' is simply unacceptable. The NRC cannot turn its back on federal law and ignore its obligation to thoroughly review the environmental, public health, and safety risks related to the creation of long-term nuclear waste storage sites within our communities. Whether you're for or against re-licensing Indian Point and our nation's aging nuclear power plants, the security of our residents who live in the areas that surround these facilities is paramount. I am committed to continuing to use the full force of my office to push the NRC to fully evaluate -- and ensure -- the safety of Indian Point and our other nuclear plants."

    Schneiderman indicated that the Court of Appeals agreed with him that the NRC violated NEPA when it found -- without conducting the necessary studies -- that no significant safety or environmental impacts will result from storing highly radioactive nuclear wastes onsite at the more than 100 operating reactors around the country, including from the Indian Point reactors in Westchester County, for 60 or more years after the reactors are closed. He said the Court also found that the NRC violated the law when it found "reasonable assurance" that sufficient, licensed, off-site storage capacity will be available to dispose of nuclear power plant waste "when necessary."  Efforts to site the only nuclear waste storage facility in the United States, the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada, were suspended in 2010 and no replacement facility has yet been identified. The appeals court wrote that the NRC "apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository." 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) one of the parties in the case said the decision will send the NRC back to square one to determine the safety and consequences of allowing nuclear reactors to produce and accumulate radioactive nuclear waste, including the potential environmental effects of the failure to develop a geologic repository. Geoff Fettus, senior project attorney in the nuclear program at NRDC said, "This is a game changer. This forces the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of producing highly radioactive nuclear waste without a long-term disposal solution. The court found: 'The Commission apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.'"

    Representative Ed Markey (D- MA) released a statement saying, "It comes as no surprise that the court has no confidence in NRC's waste confidence decision. The NRC relied on what seemed to be a faith-based methodology to conclude that highly radioactive nuclear waste can be left simply sitting in the giant swimming pools and parking lots in which it is currently stored for an additional 60 years. There was a collective failure on the part of both Congress and the Department of Energy to enable a credible, science-based search for a permanent nuclear waste repository."

    The Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's) Ellen Ginsberg, vice president and general counsel, made the following remarks in reaction to the ruling saying, "We are disappointed by the court's decision as we believe that the NRC supported its conclusions in the waste confidence decision. Nonetheless, we urge the commission to act expeditiously to undertake the additional environmental analysis identified by the court in the remand. We also encourage the agency to reissue the rule as soon as possible. We are pleased that the court specifically affirmed the agency's discretion to address the environmental issues in a generic fashion using an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment with a finding of no significant impact."

    Ironically, on June 6, Senator Pete Domenici and Dr. Pete Miller hosted the fourth and final event in the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Nuclear Initiative event series -- Near-Term Progress on Nuclear Waste Management: Implementing the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Both BPC Nuclear Initiative Co-Chairmen believe there is an urgent need to break the current stalemate on nuclear waste management in the United States and to develop an effective system to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator Domenici was a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) which released a final report in January 2012 detailing recommendations for creating a safe, long-term solution for managing and disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high‐level radioactive waste [See WIMS 2/2/12].

    Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, discussed their ongoing collaboration with Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Alexander (R-TN) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, to develop comprehensive bipartisan legislation on nuclear waste management. With taxpayer damages and liability obligations projected to reach $50 billion by 2021, Senator Murkowski expressed concern that inaction is hurting both the future of nuclear power in the United States and our country's fiscal situation. Senator Murkowski acknowledged that, while many legislators are focused solely on the potential Yucca Mountain repository, she is also looking at new options and strategies, particularly those that achieve local support.

 

    Senator Bingaman discussed the key issues that their legislative proposal will address. He emphasized the importance of having a unified, systematic approach that links interim storage to a final repository. While both Senators Bingaman and Murkowski were pessimistic about the potential to pass such legislation in this Congress, they both stressed the importance of laying out a clear legislative path forward and advancing the process one step further. Building on a successful year-long event series, the BPC Nuclear Initiative will release a high-level report this summer.

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the NY AG (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a lengthy meeting summary and links to related information from the BPC (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear, #CADC]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House Republicans Introduce Domestic Energy & Jobs Act

Jun 6: Members of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT) unveiled the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, a legislative package comprised of a series of bills which they say "aim to increase access to American energy resources and prevent misguided federal policies that will drive energy prices higher." Energy and Commerce Committee member Cory Gardner (R-CO) will sponsor the "legislative collection" that will help "spur job creation by removing roadblocks to American energy production." Included in the package are two proposals advanced by the Energy and Commerce Committee: the Strategic Energy Production Act and the Gasoline Regulations Act.

    According to a release, the Strategic Energy Production Act, authored by Rep. Gardner, "will hold the president accountable to long-term domestic energy supply solutions over short-term political gimmicks. The proposal requires that any future drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve be coupled with a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas exploration, development, and production." Rep. Gardner said, "Our country is in desperate need of a national energy strategy, and increasing domestic production should be a major component of that plan. By increasing oil and gas leases on federal land to match what is released from our emergency energy reserves, we can turn a short-term supply fix into a long-term policy that promotes America's energy independence."

    The Gasoline Regulations Act, introduced by Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), promotes a "look before you leap" approach to regulation. It requires an interagency committee to conduct a cumulative analysis on certain EPA regulations affecting transportation fuels to better understand their impact on gas prices, jobs, and the economy. The legislation also prevents the agency from finalizing three of its most costly rules -- Tier 3 standards, NSPS standards for petroleum refineries, and new ozone standards -- until after the study is completed and policymakers have time to assess the consequences. Rep. Whitfield said, "Over the past three years, prices at the gas pump have roughly doubled, and that is unacceptable. That is why I introduced commonsense legislation that will ensure that the federal government doesn't add to the pain at the pump by implementing regulations without first understanding the full costs they will have on consumers, jobs, and economic growth."

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) praised the introduction of the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act and commended his colleagues for their work on these common-sense solutions. He said, "President Obama likes to talk about what the government can't do when it comes to energy policy, but we prefer to focus on what we can do. I want to congratulate Rep. Gardner for leading the charge, and thank all the members who authored bills as a part of this effort."

    Bills Included in Domestic Energy and Jobs Act:

• Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012, H.R. 4480 (Rep. Cory Gardner, CO)
• Gasoline Regulations Act of 2012, H.R. 4471 (Rep. Ed Whitfield, KY)
• Planning for American Energy Act of 2012, H.R.4381 (Rep. Scott Tipton, CO)
• Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 2012, H.R 4382 (Rep. Mike Coffman, CO)
• Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act of 2012, H.R. 4383 (Rep. Doug Lamborn, CO) 
• National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, H.R. 2150 (Rep. "Doc" Hastings, WA) 
• BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, H.R. 2752 (Rep. Bill Johnson, OH)

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a release saying it welcomed the legislation "that would create a real U.S. energy policy to increase production of the domestic oil and natural gas that America needs." Conrad Lass, API senior director of federal relations said, "Americans want to access more of our own energy resources, not only to enhance energy security, but also to put downward pressure on prices. The oil and natural gas industry can help revitalize the economy, create new jobs, and generate millions of dollars of new federal and state revenue, by safely accessing areas currently off limits. Excessive regulations can make it harder for refineries to compete and stay in business," said Lass. "Decisions made by policy makers should always be guided by a firm understanding of all the costs and impacts to the economy." API thanked sponsors of this legislation for continuing to showcase the importance of advancing comprehensive energy legislation.

    Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Member on the Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a release commenting on the Republican bills saying, "House Republicans are trotting out a series of bills that would give oil companies control over taxpayer-owned lands, put a short 'shot clock' on the safety review of drilling permits, and say that oil and gas production has priority over any and all other activity on public lands, like hunting or fishing." He said, "Instead of sending a thank you note to President Obama for increasing oil production and decreasing our foreign oil dependence through his 'all of the above' energy strategy, House Republicans are sending a love letter to the oil industry in the form of another oil-above-all scheme. These bills allow oil companies to say what lands they want to drill, even if Americans use them for hunting or fishing. And just in time for the NBA playoffs, it puts a 'shot clock' on the safety review of drilling permits, sending America back to the speed-over-safety days of the BP spill."

   Access a release from the Energy & Commerce Committee (click here). Access a release from HEAT with further information on each of the bills (click here). Access a release from Rep. Gardner (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4480 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4471 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4381 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4382 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.4383 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2150 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.2752 (click here). [#Energy]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

ACEEE Reports On New Energy Find "Intelligent Efficiency"

Jun 5: A report released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) indicates that America now has a major new source of energy that could rival the contribution made to the economy by natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The report concludes that up to about a quarter (22 percent) of current U.S. energy consumption could be replaced by what experts are calling "intelligent efficiency." The key to understanding the rise of "intelligent efficiency" is to stop thinking about energy efficiency simply in terms of individual devices (e.g., autos or refrigerators) and to start thinking about it in terms of complex systems (e.g., entire cities, transportation systems, and other networks) connected through Internet and computer technologies. 

    As the ACEEE report concludes: "System efficiency opportunities produce energy savings that dwarf component-based efficiency improvements by an order of magnitude. System efficiency is performance-based, optimizing the performance of the system overall -- its components, their relationships to one another, and their relationships to human operators. One of the cornerstones of systems-based efficiency is information and communication technologies, such as the Internet, affordable sensors, and computing capacity that are the foundation upon which systems efficiency are built…If homeowners and businesses were to take advantage of currently available information and communications technologies that enable system efficiencies, the United States could reduce its energy use by about 12-22 percent and realize tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in energy savings and productivity gains."

    R. Neal Elliott, ACEEE's associate director for research, "This is not your father's device-driven approach to energy efficiency. A large portion of our past efficiency gains came from improvements in individual products, appliances, and equipment, such as light bulbs, electric motors, or cars and trucks. And while device-level technology improvements will continue to play an important role, looking ahead we must take a systems-based approach to dramatically scale up energy efficiency to meet our future energy challenges. Through intelligent efficiency, utility systems, interconnected cities, transportation systems, and communications networks can become the new normal across the United States and will undergird national and regional economies that, even in the face of increasingly scarce resources, grow and thrive."

    Stephen Harper, global director of environment and energy policy, Intel Corporation said, "There is resounding agreement that information and communications technology can make a huge impact in addressing the twin challenges of energy security and climate change. This new work by ACEEE should help both industry and government better understand 'smart policies' necessary to fully realize the potential of technology in this arena." Larry Plumb, executive director, Verizon said, "ACEEE's report highlights that communications and digital technologies are transforming how efficiently we use energy, from appliances in customers' homes, to cars and roads in transportation systems, to the power lines and generators in the electric system. It's well understood that digital communications has boosted economic productivity. Now people are recognizing this technology also has a big role to play in addressing society's long-term energy challenges."

    Arkadi Gerney, senior director for policy Opower said, "As devices get smarter and the communications networks that connect those devices become more ubiquitous, the potential for efficiency gains that save energy and save businesses and families money are increasing. And, as this report shows, truly unlocking the potential of intelligent efficiency systems also depends on engaging energy consumers with smarter behavioral strategies and advanced analytics that turns an avalanche of data into actionable insight."

    Clay Nesler, vice president, global energy and sustainability, building efficiency, Johnson Controls said, "Johnson Controls has many real life examples where intelligent efficiency solutions have dramatically reduced building energy use, most notably at the Empire State Building. This practical and effective approach to improving and managing building energy efficiency can be cost-effectively applied to both new and existing commercial buildings." Paul Hamilton, vice president, government affairs, Schneider Electric said, "This report is further evidence of the real revolution happening in our industry, the convergence of energy management and information that's allowing companies to achieve significant savings of 30 percent or more. It's time for businesses and government to get involved and engaged in the partnerships and programs that will make this more of an everyday reality."

    According to ACEEE, opportunities exist along a continuum of technology and human behavior, and we classify the resource into three broad categories across this continuum: (1) People-centered efficiency; (2) Technology-centered efficiency; and (3) Service-oriented efficiency. There are technologies that are just beginning to be implemented that promise even greater savings. The report provides ten case studies of intelligent efficiency in our homes, buildings, industry, and transportation sectors that demonstrate the potential benefits of scaling up this resource.

 

    ACEEE says tremendous potential exists for greater adoption of intelligent efficiency, but significant barriers exist. Policy can facilitate the deployment of systems built around intelligent efficiency in several key ways, such as leading by example in the public and private sectors, enhancing information infrastructure, and redefining regulatory business models to promote greater system efficiency.

 

    Access a release from ACEEE and link to the complete 63-page report (click here, registration required for the report). [#Energy/Efficiency]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Global Policy Action Plan Identifies 24 Tipping-Point Policies

Jun 5: On the 40th Anniversary of the UN's World Environment Day, June 5, 2012, the World Future Council (WFC) has released its Global Policy Action Plan. According to a release, "With growing climate chaos and desertification, biodiversity decline, ocean pollution and forest decimation, the interlinked crises brought about by human action are threatening the very capacity of the earth to sustain life." Defining a political framework for changing course, the policy advocacy organization World Future Council presents an emergency policy agenda consisting of 24 tipping-point policies that need to be implemented globally to preserve a habitable planet.

    The condensed, six-page document is titled "Saving our Shared Future -- Best Policies to Regenerate our World". It is the result of more than five years of work with parliamentarians, national and international policy-makers, as well as scholars and civil society groups to identify, debate, legislate and implement breakthrough policies to enable the transition to a fair and sustainable future.

    Jakob von Uexkull, WFC Founder and Chairman said, "With the best laws and right policy incentives we can mobilize human inventiveness and entrepreneurship to safeguard a healthy planet for future generations. It has to be understood that the purpose of our Policy Action Plan is not to promote one specific solution but to identify interlinked reforms which rapidly enable us to change direction."

    The 24 tipping-point policies are divided into four main areas of necessary policy reform, evocatively titled: "Regenerating our Planet", "Making Money again our Servant", "Governance and Education" and "Protecting Our Shared Future". They include policies to speed up the global transition to renewable energy, policies regulating financial instruments, securing sustainable ecosystems, granting equal educational opportunities for women and outlawing nuclear weapons. Ahead of the Rio+20 Conference in Rio de Janeiro, the top policy recommendation concerns the election of a High Commissioner or Ombudsperson for Future Generations by the United Nations and national parliaments to institutionally integrate a long-term perspective in policy-making.

    The release indicates that for its planned advocacy work on the tipping-point policies WFC counts on its existing international network but is also looking for new allies. Von Uexkull said, "We are actively seeking partnerships to secure the implementation of the Global Policy Action Plan. We appeal to governments, inter-governmental and civil society organizations, academia, media and youth groups to work with us on saving our shared future and regenerating our world." Among the top policy recommendations are:

• High Commissioners/Ombudspersons for Future Generations to be elected by the United Nations and national parliaments to integrate a long-term perspective in policy-making and represent the rights of future generations in political decision-making. Precedents exist in Canada, Hungary, Israel, Wales etc.
• Governments to agree an amendment to the statutes of the International Criminal Court to criminalize acts that cause irreversible damage to our natural environment.
• Nuclear weapons, to be outlawed in national legislation (as in New Zealand). The nuclear-weapons-possessing States to fulfill their obligation to commence negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons in a phased, verifiable and irreversible manner. The Arctic and the Middle East to be declared Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zones.
• The $1.6 trillion p.a. military spending to be shifted gradually through a global treaty to fund environmental, food and water security and the protection of the common heritage of humankind (oceans, atmosphere and outer space).
• The State Pension Fund Divestment Law (Norway) banning harmful investments, thus ensuring that our savings do not threaten us, to become the basis of a global treaty.

    WFC indicates, "We are often told that we cannot change our world – or human nature. Yet both are changed all the time. New norms, technologies and lifestyles spread across continents. Public attitudes shift. Culture is not static, but adapts and evolves continually, as does human consciousness. We are also told that the reforms required to safeguard our shared future are too costly. This is wrong. Whatever a society can do, it can also finance. Only political and public will is needed. New money can be created without causing inflation if it is used to fund new production, and to reduce the unaffordable waste of unemployment.

 

    To implement the changes, WFC proposes "a five-year worldwide public education campaign to rapidly raise global awareness about the stark realities and choices we face, and to mobilize support for the key policy changes required, reaching both the global public and the key policy-makers (at a cost estimated at less than US $100 million)."

 

    The WFC brings the interests of future generations to the center of policy-making. Its 50 eminent members from around the globe have already successfully promoted change. The Council addresses challenges to the common future and provides decision makers with effective policy solutions. WFC is registered as a charitable foundation in Hamburg, Germany.

 

    Access a release on the Global Policy Action Plan (click here). Access the 6-page Global Policy Action Plan (click here). Access the WFC website for more information (click here). Access information on the 50-members (click here). [#Sustain]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

 

UCS Probes Corporate Sincerity To Climate Change Science

May 30: An analysis released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) indicates that many of the country's leading companies have taken contradictory actions when it comes to climate change science while pumping a tremendous amount of resources into influencing the discussion. UCS examined 28 companies in the S&P 500 that participated in climate policy debates over the past several years. All of them publicly expressed concern about climate change or a commitment to reducing emissions through websites and public statements, but half (14) also misrepresented climate science in their public communications. UCS says, "Many more contributed to the spread of misinformation about climate science in less direct ways, such as through political contributions, trade group memberships, and think tank funding."

    Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program and a contributor to the report said, "Corporations' increased ability to influence policy should come with an increased responsibility to let the public know how they are doing so. Companies may play a role in policy discussions, but right now, it's simply far too easy for them to get away with misrepresenting science to achieve their goals."

    According to a release, utilizing an array of publicly available data, the report systematically examines how corporate influence fosters confusion on climate change. The analysis found that some American companies, including NRG Energy, Inc., NIKE, Inc. and AES Corporation, accept the findings of climate science and have taken actions in support of science-based policy. Other corporations, including Peabody Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation, and FMC Corporation, have worked aggressively to undermine climate policies and have misrepresented climate science to do so.

    Several companies stand out for taking contradictory actions on climate change. Caterpillar Inc., for instance, highlights its commitment to sustainability and climate change mitigation on its website. But the company also serves on the boards of two trade groups that regularly attempt to undermine public understanding of climate science: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Caterpillar also funds the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two think tanks that have misrepresented climate science.

    Similarly, ConocoPhillips says on its website that it recognizes human activity is "contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate." But in comments to the Environmental Protection Agency, the company criticized scientific evidence on the ways climate change can harm public health.

    Gretchen Goldman, an analyst in the Scientific Integrity Program and a report contributor said, "The difference between what many of these companies say and what they actually do is quite stark. And because we know only limited amounts about their activities, it's relatively simple for companies to show one face to the public and another to policymakers."

    The report found that companies also utilized their considerable financial resources to oppose climate policy. Lobbying expenditures for energy sector companies increased by 92 percent from 2007 to 2009, when climate change bills were actively debated in Congress. Meanwhile, Valero Energy Corporation donated more than $4 million to the Yes on Prop 23 campaign, which sought to undermine California's climate change law, but was ultimately rejected by voters.

    UCS's Grifo said, "The actions of many of these companies come right from the tobacco industry playbook, where the end goal is delaying sensible regulations that protect our health and safety. Companies generally find that complying with new rules is not as burdensome as they first imagined. But that doesn't prevent them from obfuscating the science to create confusion and delay." UCS indicates that the report, while as comprehensive as possible, is limited because companies are not required to reveal sufficient information about their activities -- such as the purpose of lobbying expenditures and contributions to political action committees, industry advocacy groups and think tanks.

    Goldman said, "This lack of disclosure of how corporations spend their money means they can get away with taking different positions on climate change with different audiences. Greater transparency would allow citizens, investors, and policymakers to make better-informed decisions and hold corporations accountable." UCS says there are several relatively simple steps that would allow the public and policymakers to better hold companies accountable, including expanded reporting requirements to the Securities and Exchange Commission and passage of the DISCLOSE Act, which would require corporations to share more information about their political spending.

    Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who joined UCS in its launch of the report said, "This report quantifies and reinforces the urgent need to shine a light on the special interest money that is designed to distort science and influence our public policies. As this report documents, the amount of money dedicated to influence our debates is dramatically increasing and, unfortunately, is frequently channeled through third parties." Van Hollen said that the problem has increased due to the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision allowing secret money from outside groups to flow into elections. He said legislation like the DISCLOSE Act will inject much needed transparency into elections and should be brought for a vote in Congress without delay. He said, "Voters have a right to know who is bankrolling the campaign ads that are designed to influence their votes. An informed electorate is essential to our democracy."

    Access a release from UCS (click here). Access the report website for links to the complete report, executive summary, FAQs, company profiles and appendices (click here). [#Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Policies To Transition To A Global Sustainable, Green Economy

May 31: A new report led by the Green Jobs Initiative indicates that the transformation to a greener economy could generate 15 to 60 million additional jobs globally over the next two decades and lift tens of millions of workers out of poverty. The report, Working towards sustainable development: Opportunities for decent work and social inclusion in a green economy, indicates that these gains will depend on whether the right set of policies are put in place. The Green Jobs Initiative is a partnership between the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Congress (ITUC).The Initiative was launched in order to promote opportunity, equity and just transitions, to mobilize governments, employers and workers to engage in dialogue on coherent policies and effective programs leading to a green economy with green jobs and decent work for all.

 

    ILO Director-General Juan Somavia said, "The current development model has proven to be inefficient and unsustainable, not only for the environment, but for economies and societies as well. We urgently need to move to a sustainable development path with a coherent set of policies with people and the planet at the centre. The forthcoming "Rio+20" United Nations conference will be a crucial moment to make sure decent work and social inclusion are integral parts of any future development strategy."

 

   Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said, "This report comes on the eve of World Environment Day on 5 June under the theme Green Economy: Does it Include You?". The findings underline that it can include millions more people in terms of overcoming poverty and delivering improved livelihoods for this and future generations. It is a positive message of opportunity in a troubled world of challenges that we are relaying to capital cities across the globe as leaders prepare and plan for the Rio+20 Summit."

 

   The report -- published almost four years after the first study by the Green Jobs Initiative -- looks at the impact that the greening of the economy can have on employment, incomes and sustainable development in general. According to the report, at least half of the global workforce -- the equivalent of 1.5 billion people -- will be affected by the transition to a greener economy. While changes will be felt throughout the economy, eight key sectors are expected to play a central role and be mostly affected -- agriculture, forestry, fishing, energy, resource-intensive manufacturing, recycling, building and transport.

 

    Tens of millions of jobs have already been created by this transformation. For example the renewable energy sector now employs close to 5 million workers, more than doubling the number of jobs from 2006-2010. Energy efficiency is another important source of green jobs, particularly in the construction industry, the sector hardest hit by the economic crisis. In the United States, three million people are employed in environmental goods and services. In Spain, there are now more than half a-million jobs in this sector.

 

    Net gains in employment in the order of 0.5 - 2 per cent of total employment are possible. In emerging economies and developing countries, the gains are likely to be higher than in industrialized countries, because the former can leapfrog to green technology rather than replace obsolete resource-intensive infrastructure. Brazil has already created just under three million jobs, accounting for some 7 per cent of all formal employment.

 

    The report emphasizes that, "No gains will be made without the right policies," saying, "The good results have one thing in common: the recognition that environmental and socio-economic challenges need to be addressed in a comprehensive and complementary manner.

• First, this means promoting and implementing sustainable production processes at the level of the business itself, especially among small-and-medium-sized enterprises in the key sectors mentioned above.
• Second, an extension of social protection, income support and skills training measures is key to ensuring that workers are in a position to take advantage of these new opportunities.
• Third, international labor standards and workers' rights can provide a legal and institutional framework, as well as practical guidance, for work in a greener and sustainable economy, especially when it comes to job quality and occupational safety and health.
• Finally, effective social dialogue involving employers and trade unions is central to the governance of sustainable development.

    Other key findings of the report include:

• In the EU alone, 14.6 million direct and indirect jobs exist in the protection of biodiversity and rehabilitation of natural resources and forests.
• The targeted international investments of US$ 30 billion/year into reduced deforestation and degradation of forests could sustain up to 8 million additional full-time workers in developing countries.
• Experiences from Colombia, Brazil and other countries show that the formalization and organization of some 15-20 million informal waste pickers could have significant economic, social and environmental benefits.
• The building renovation program for energy efficiency in Germany is an example of the possible win-win-win outcomes: it has mobilized $100 billion in investments; it is reducing energy bills, avoiding emissions and creating around 300,000 direct jobs per year.
• Overuse of natural resources has already caused large losses, including over a million jobs for forest workers, mainly in Asia, because of unsustainable forest management practices.
• The fisheries sector is likely to face a major, albeit temporary transition challenge for workers due to overfishing. Temporary reductions of catch may be needed in many fisheries to allow declining stocks to recover. Of particular concern is that 95 per cent of the 45 million workers employed in fishing are often poor artisanal coastal fishermen in developing countries.
• In much of Asia, Africa, Latin America and parts of Europe, the proportion of expenditure on energy by poor households is three times - and can be as much as 20 times - that of richer households.
• The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India and the social housing and 'green grants' programs in Brazil are good examples of social protection policies that contribute to sustainable development.
• Women could be among the main beneficiaries of a greener, more socially inclusive economy, with better access to opportunities to jobs, for example in renewable energy, higher incomes, in particular in agriculture, formalization of employment, notably among the 15-20 million recycling workers and many burdens reduced among other from access to clean energy, enhanced food security, energy and water efficient social housing.
• A mere 8-12 per cent of the workforce in industrialized countries, for example, is employed in the 10-15 industries generating 70-80 per cent of CO2 emissions. Only a fraction of these is likely to lose their jobs if policies are adopted to green existing enterprises and to promote employment.

    Access a release from UNEP and link to related information (click here). Access the complete 208-page report (click here). [#Sustain, Energy/Green, #Climate]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Ceres White Paper On Investor Risks From Oil Shale Development

May 30: A new white paper from Ceres, the coalition of investors and others advocating sustainability leadership, supports a Federal agency's proposal to take a "cautious approach" to oil shale production in the western U.S. and cites "technological uncertainties and a wide range of other risks." At issue is the Bureau of Land Management's (BLMs) proposal to focus oil shale production in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado on "Research, Development, and Demonstration" (RD&D) leases only and to reduce the available acreage to about 500,000 acres from nearly two million acres under an earlier plan [See WIMS 2/3/12].

    Ceres president Mindy Lubber, citing regulatory risks, water constraints and numerous other questions about various technologies being pursued to extract a non-liquid form of oil from shale rock said, "Given the wide array of uncertainties, BLM's proposed leasing approach on oil shale makes sense. Investors should be similarly cautious in evaluating future investment in this space." Paul Bugala, senior sustainability analyst, extractive industries, at Calvert Investments said, "Oil shale technologies are still highly speculative, and proving them to be commercially viable will be difficult and require a long period of time with uncertain outcomes. The little that state and federal regulators know about the environmental impacts, especially in the areas of water use and land reclamation, further indicates that caution should be exercised."

    While oil shale reserves beneath the three states in the Green River Formation are vast, holding more than three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, the Ceres white paper, Investor Risks from Oil Shale Development, sends a strong cautionary message to policymakers, investors and companies alike. The white paper, prepared by David Gardiner & Associates, LLC, identifies five key risks to oil shale development:

• Core technological uncertainty: Despite decades of efforts, surface and in-ground technologies for producing oil shale still face many uncertainties. The report states: "The uncertainties around continued testing and development of new technologies and processes for producing oil from oil shale leave a great deal still unknown, including the amount of the resource that is recoverable, the efficiencies and costs of various methods, the impacts on natural resources, and the effects of various technologies on the costs of final products (and thus the competitiveness of oil shale)." The white paper cites an earlier report by the Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels (comprised of federal, state, and local officials) which states: "[t]echnology uncertainty is the largest single risk factor associated with oil shale development. This uncertainty remains even after 50 years of government and industry research to develop a commercially viable retorting technology."
• Market risks: Production of oil shale is characterized by significant capital investment, high operating costs, and long payback periods – at least a decade. Uncertainties about the costs associated with developing a first-generation commercial facility, combined with oil price volatility and other uncertainties, pose investment risks that make oil shale investment less attractive than other potential uses of capital. Sporadic attempts to commercialize oil shale have repeatedly failed once oil prices fall.
• Water constraints: Oil shale development's need for water is a particular concern in water-stressed states such as Colorado and Utah. The report cites estimates showing that surface technologies may require 2 to 4 barrels of water for every barrel of product produced while in-ground technologies may require up to 12 barrels of water per barrel produced. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has suggested that the size of the oil shale industry in Colorado and Utah may be limited by water availability.
• Regulatory risks: Lifecycle carbon emissions for oil shale fuels are likely to be 25 to 75 percent greater than for conventional petroleum. This means oil shale development could face risks as carbon-reducing rules and regulations take hold – whether low-carbon fuel standards, a price on carbon emissions, lifecycle emissions requirements, or other measures. Other federal and state environmental regulations, including those related to air and water quality, also pose risks to oil shale development.
• Risks from public opposition: Public opposition to oil shale based on the actual or perceived environmental impacts could "derail, delay, or increase the costs of such projects," says the white paper.

    Ceres points out that more than 70 percent of the Green River Formation oil shale resources lie beneath Federal lands. BLM is presently considering public comments on its Programmatic EIS proposal to limit development to RD&D leases on 252,181 acres in Utah, 174,476 acres in Wyoming and 35,308 acres in Colorado. The comment period ended on May 4. A decision is expected in fall 2012. The Ceres white paper contains three key recommendations for investors:

• They should "analyze their equity investments and engage with relevant companies (e.g., oil and gas companies, end users) in which they are shareholders, to further understand the risks that companies are assuming related to oil shale and the ways in which companies are mitigating those risks."
• They should "pay close attention to the potential for risks to emerge in their fixed income portfolios from state and municipal bonds, to the extent such bonds are used to directly or indirectly support development of oil shale."
• They should "advocate for public policies that create a clearer low-carbon regulatory framework and provide long-term investment certainty.

    On May 10: The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled, "Challenges and Opportunities of Unconventional Resources Technology." [See WIMS 5/11/12]. The Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) said, "The Green River Basin, located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, may contain up to three trillion barrels of oil -- more potential oil than the rest of the world's current oil reserves combined. If this energy -- which is overwhelmingly on Federal lands -- made available, I am confident American ingenuity will find ways to responsibly explore and produce this resource."

 

    Access a release from Ceres (click here). Access the complete 4-page white paper (click here). Access a lengthy release from BLM with contact and commenting information, and links to the Draft PEIS, FR notice and related information (click here). Access complete information on the PEIS (click here). [#Energy/OilShale, #Energy/TarSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

IEA Says Industry "Exemplary Performance" Needed With Fracking

May 29: A report released in London by the International Energy Agency (IEA), a special World Energy Outlook report on unconventional gas entitled, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas; indicates that exploiting the world's vast resources of unconventional natural gas holds the key to a golden age of gas, but for that to happen governments, industry and other stakeholders must work together to address legitimate public concerns about the associated environmental and social impacts.

 

    IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said, "The technology and the know-how already exist for unconventional gas to be produced in an environmentally acceptable way. But if the social and environmental impacts are not addressed properly, there is a very real possibility that public opposition to drilling for shale gas and other types of unconventional gas will halt the unconventional gas revolution in its tracks. The industry must win public confidence by demonstrating exemplary performance; governments must ensure that appropriate policies and regulatory regimes are in place."

    The reports Golden Rules underline the importance of full transparency, measuring and monitoring of environmental impacts and engagement with local communities; careful choice of drilling sites and measures to prevent any leaks from wells into nearby aquifers; rigorous assessment and monitoring of water requirements and of waste water; measures to target zero venting and minimal flaring of gas; and improved project planning and regulatory control.

    According to a release, at their recent Camp David Summit [See WIMS 5/21/12], G8 leaders welcomed and agreed to review this IEA work on potential best practices for natural gas development. The G8 members said, "We are committed to establishing and sharing best practices on energy production, including exploration in frontier areas and the use of technologies such as deep water drilling and hydraulic fracturing, where allowed, to allow for the safe development of energy sources, taking into account environmental concerns over the life of a field." Van der Hoeven said, "To build on the Golden Rules, we are establishing a high-level platform so that governments can share insights on the policy and regulatory action that can accompany an expansion in unconventional gas production, shale gas in particular. This platform will be open to IEA members and non-members alike".

    IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the report's chief author said, "If this new industry is to prosper, it needs to earn and maintain its social license to operate. This comes with a financial cost, but in our estimation the additional costs are likely to be limited." Applying the Golden Rules could increase the cost of a typical shale-gas well by around 7%, but, for a larger development project with multiple wells, investment in measures to reduce environmental impacts may in many cases be offset by lower operating costs. The report argues that there is a critical link between the way governments and industry respond to these social and environmental challenges and the prospects for unconventional gas production. Accordingly, the report sets out two possible future trajectories for unconventional gas:

    In a Golden Rules Case, the application of these rules helps to underpin a brisk expansion of unconventional gas supply, which has far-reaching consequences:

• World production of unconventional gas, primarily shale gas, more than triples between 2010 and 2035 to 1.6 trillion cubic meters.
• The United States becomes a significant player in international gas markets, and China emerges as a major producer.
• New sources of supply help to keep prices down, stimulate investment and job creation in unconventional resource-rich countries, and generate faster growth in global gas demand, which rises by more than 50% between 2010 and 2035.

    By contrast, in a Low Unconventional Case where no Golden Rules are in place, a lack of public acceptance means that unconventional gas production rises only slightly above current levels by 2035. Among the results:

• The competitive position of gas in the global fuel mix deteriorates amidst lower availability and higher prices, and the share of gas in energy use barely increases.
• Energy-related CO2 emissions are higher by 1.3% compared with the Golden Rules Case but, in both cases, emissions are well above the trajectory required to reach the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C.

    Several groups of investors with about $1 trillion in assets under management commented on the IEA report and said they are "seeing much they can support." On May 16, 2012, Boston Common Asset Management (Boston Common), the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN) and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) announced that 55 major investment organizations and institutional investors had united in support of "best practices" for the fracking of shale gas. The issued their own guidelines entitled, "Extracting the Facts: An Investor Guide to Disclosing Risks from Hydraulic Fracturing Operations." They said the IEA "Golden Rules" recommendations are "in the same spirit as the IEHN/ICCR guidelines."

    Steven Heim, managing director and director of ESG Research and Shareholder Engagement, Boston Common, said, "Investors require full disclosure in accordance with IEA's golden rules in order to make fully informed judgments about wise investments in the energy sector that take full account of companies' management of environmental risks and social impacts."

 

    Richard Liroff, PhD., executive director, Investor Environmental Health Network, said, "The substantial alignment between IEA's recommendations and 'Extracting the Facts' means that 'Extracting the Facts' provides companies with a practical tool for implementing the IEA recommendations." Sister Nora Nash, director of corporate social responsibility, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and member of the ICCR, said, "The IEA golden rules reinforce the core messages of the investor guidelines we put forth in "Extracting the Facts" that companies need to fully engage communities to secure their social license to operate, and a critical element of such engagement is responding to community concerns and reporting fully on operational practices."

 

    Access a release from IEA and link to videos of the announcement presentation, Q&A's and opening remarks (click here). Access links to the complete 150-page report, annex and presentation slides (click here). Access a release from the investors (click here). Access the 36-page Extracting the Facts investor guidelines (click here). Access a White House blog posting on the G8 Summit with links to extensive information including the G8 Declaration or Camp David Declaration, a slideshow from the weekend, President Obama's Remarks at the close of the G8 Summit and more (click here). [#Energy/Frack]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

GOP Senators Claim Victory In Stopping DOD Use Of Alternative Fuels

May 25: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, welcomed what he called "successful bipartisan votes on amendments that he sponsored to the Defense Authorization bill which will hold the Obama administration accountable for forcing the Department of Defense (DoD) to spend scarce resources on a far left green agenda."  Last week, Senator Inhofe took to the Senate floor to express his concern and vowed that he would introduce a number of amendments that would prevent President Obama from making DoD go green at an exorbitant price tag, especially when he has cut funds for essential military programs.

    Senator Inhofe said,  "Through passage of these amendments to the Defense authorization bill in committee, the Senate has taken a significant step to rein in the radical green agenda that President Obama is attempting to impose on our military. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have been committed to stopping President Obama from forcing the Department of Defense to spend enormous amounts of scarce resources on pointless global warming efforts, all while he is gutting our military, drastically reducing DoD's budget, and cutting core programs that are vital to our troops' safety. The good news is that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan fashion to prevent President Obama from achieving many aspects of his war on affordable energy at DoD. President Obama's efforts to green the military just further represent the separation between his phony reelection rhetoric and his true agenda. There is nothing 'all-of-the-above' about him trying to destroy fossil fuel use in the military so that he can impose his radical green regime.  Once again, his actions speak louder than his words.

    Sen. Inhofe said, "I would like to applaud my friend, Ranking Member Senator McCain [R-AZ], for his important work on this issue.  As he rightly said, we were able to 'restrict the Department of the Navy to a reasonable approach rather than spending $244 a gallon' - it was a pleasure teaming up with him to achieve this. I will continue to work with my colleagues to build on the success of today and look forward to making more progress reining in President Obama's failed far left green agenda."

 

    In fact, the amendments were very controversial and were narrowly approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. One amendment: To make certain alternative fuel procurement requirements, as required by Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, inapplicable to the Department of Defense failed on a roll call vote, 13-13. A second amendment: To include a provision that would prohibit the use of funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense in FY 2013 from being obligated or expended for the production or sole purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuels used for the same purpose, except for continued testing purposes, passed on a roll call vote, 13-12. And, another amendment: To prohibit the construction of a biofuels refinery or any other facility or infrastructure used to refine biofuels unless the requirement is specifically authorized by law passed on a roll call vote, 13-12.

 

    On May 23, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), a supporter of the Department of Defense's development and use of renewable fuels, issued a statement saying, "The United States has always maintained its strategic superiority in the world by refusing to be satisfied with the status quo. Our energy policy -- for consumers at home and our military -- should take the same approach. We need to change the way we approach energy policy now, so our military and our economy are not beholden to just one fuel source -- especially one that overwhelmingly is located in unstable parts of the world. It is time for Congress to recognize that saving energy saves lives, especially when it comes to our troops in harm's way."

 

    Sen. Udall said, "Leaving our armed forces vulnerable to swings in the energy markets is neither fiscally prudent, nor is it a sound approach to national security. I plan to continue to work with the armed forces and my colleagues to make renewable energies part of our national defense strategy." He said the rising and unpredictable cost of energy "has a steep price tag for the Department of Defense." The U.S. military consumes more than 300,000 barrels of oil every 24 hours. Each time the price per barrel of oil rises by a single dollar, the annual Pentagon budget jumps by more than $130 million. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the price of oil has risen $72 dollars since May 2001.

    In a guest column for Stars and Stripes, Sen. Udall said in part, "Alternative energy sources such as biofuels, tactical solar arrays and state-of-the-art batteries save lives by reducing the number of convoys and resupply missions in combat zones. In fact, Marines who had recently returned from Afghanistan told me that using portable solar technology allowed them to shed 10 to 15 pounds of batteries from their packs -- dead weight they were able to replace with critical ammunition and supplies. . . Not allowing the military to pursue alternative fuel sources leaves our defense budget and our national security in the dark ages. An addiction to volatile supply lines allows foreign governments, such as Iran, to hold our military and our budget hostage."

 

    The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate, urged Senators to support the DOD efforts to accelerate production of American-made, advanced, "drop-in" biofuels for use in military jets, ships, and vehicles. Advanced biofuels can help power our military, address security of supply, mitigate price volatility, diversify military fuel supplies and enhance U.S. national security. Pew said in a letter, "U.S. advanced biofuel producers have made rapid progress toward cost-competitiveness. Per gallon cost of test quantities of advanced biofuels under Navy contracts has declined more than 90 percent over the past two years and will continue to decline as these technologies scale to commercial production. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the premiere clean energy data and analysis firm, forecasts that advanced biofuels will be cost competitive by 2018."

 

    The Advanced Biofuels Association, the Algal Biomass Organization, Airlines for America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Growth Energy, and the Pew Charitable Trusts all expressed disappointment that the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act blocking the Department of Defense's (DoD) use of domestically produced alternative energy. The groups released this joint statement:

    "Continued reliance on foreign oil puts U.S. national security at risk. Oil market volatility has already wreaked havoc on military budgets, which came at the cost of new equipment and training for our troops and reduced military readiness. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, DoD came up $5.6 billion short in its budget for military operations and maintenance because it spent more on fuel than anticipated. Moreover, the United States sends $1 billion overseas each and every day to pay for foreign oil, further draining resources from the U.S. economy.

    "U.S. advanced biofuel producers have made rapid progress toward cost-competitiveness. The per-gallon cost of test quantities of advanced biofuels under DoD contracts has declined more than 90 percent over the past two years and will continue to decline as these technologies scale to commercial production. DoD's efforts to reduce use of foreign oil and increase use of American biofuels can lead the nation's effort to achieve energy security. We will work with Members of the Senate to restore support within the NDAA for the DoD's commitment to accelerate production of American-made, advanced, 'drop-in' biofuels for use in military jets, ships, and vehicles." 

    Access a release from Sen. Inhofe with links to additional information and the amendments (click here). Access a release from Sen. Udall with links to related information (click here). Access a 33-page release and summary of the markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2013 (click here). Access the roll call votes on various amendments (click here). Access the Pew Project letter and links to related information (click here). Access the joint statement from the industry groups and organizations (click here). [#Energy/Alternative]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

CRS Report On GHG Emissions & Canadian Oil Sands

May 24: The Congressional Research Service (CRS), has prepared a report entitled, Canadian Oil Sands: Life-Cycle Assessments of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and it has been released via the OpenCRS project. The report is dated May 15, 2012. According to the report, recent Congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in part on ways through which the United States could secure more economical and reliable crude oil resources both domestically and internationally. Many forecasters identify petroleum refined from Canadian oil sands as one possible solution.

 

    The report says, "Increased petroleum production from Canadian oil sands, however, is not without controversy, as many have expressed concern over the potential environmental impacts. These impacts may include increased water and natural gas use, disturbance of mined land, effects on wildlife and water quality, trans-boundary air pollution, and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) during extraction and processing. A number of key studies in recent literature have expressed findings that GHG emissions from the production of Canadian oil sands crudes may be higher than those of other crudes imported, refined, and consumed in the United States. The studies identify two main reasons for the increase: (1) oil sands are heavier and more viscous than lighter crude oil types on average, and thus require more energy- and resource intensive activities to extract; and (2) oil sands are compositionally deficient in hydrogen, and have a higher carbon, sulfur, and heavy metal content than lighter crude oil types on average, and thus require more processing to yield consumable fuels."

 

    CRS indicates that it surveyed the available literature, including the U.S. Department of State-commissioned study in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline project. The report that the literature reveals the following:

• despite differences in the design and input assumptions of the various studies, Canadian oil sands crudes are on average somewhat more GHG emission-intensive than the crudes they would displace in the U.S. refineries, with a range of increase from 14%-20% over the average Well-to-Wheel emissions of other imported crudes;
• discounting the final consumption phase of the life-cycle assessment (which can contribute up to 70%-80% of Well-to-Wheel emissions), Well-to-Tank (i.e., production) emissions from Canadian oil sands crudes have a range of increase from 72%-111% over the average Well-to-Tank emissions of other imported crudes;
• Canadian oil sands crudes, on a Well-to-Wheel basis, range from 9%-19% more emission-intensive than Middle Eastern Sour, 5%-13% more emission-intensive than Mexican Maya, and 2%-18% more emission-intensive than various Venezuelan crudes;
• the estimated effect of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline on the U.S. GHG footprint would be an increase of 3 million to 21 million metric tons of GHG emissions annually (equal to the annual GHG emissions from the combustion of fuels in approximately 588,000 to 4,061,000 passenger vehicles); and
• the estimated effect of the Keystone XL pipeline on global GHG emissions remains uncertain, as some speculate that its construction would encourage an expansion of oil sands development, while others suggest that the project would not substantially influence either the rate or magnitude of oil extraction activities in Canada or the overall volume of crude oil transported to and refined in the United States.   

    CRS notes regarding the "Scope and Purpose of This Report" that, "After discussing the basic methodology of life-cycle assessments [LCAs] and examining the choice of boundaries, design features, and input assumptions, this report compares several of the publicly available assessments of life-cycle emissions data for Canadian oil sands crudes against each other and against those of other global reference crudes. Further, as congressional concern over the environmental impacts of Canadian oil sands production may encompass both a broad understanding of the global resource as well as a specific assessment of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the report surveys both the general scientific literature as well as the individual findings of the State Department's Keystone XL Project Environmental Impact Statement. Finally, as life-cycle assessments have become an influential -- albeit developing -- methodology for collecting, analyzing, and comparing GHG emissions, the report concludes with a discussion of some tools for policymakers who are interested in using these assessments to investigate the potential impacts of U.S. energy policy choices on the environment."

 

    In a concluding comment for further consideration, CRS indicates, ". . .because of the complex life cycle of hydrocarbon fuels and the large number of analytical design features that are needed to model their emissions, LCAs retain many variables and uncertainties. These uncertainties often make comparing results across resources or production methods problematic. Hence, the usefulness of LCA as an analytical tool for policymakers may lie less in its capacity to generate comparative rankings, or 'scores,' between one source and another, and more in its ability to highlight 'areas of concern,' or 'hot spots,' in the production of a given hydrocarbon fuel. In this way, LCA can serve to direct policymakers' attention to those areas in resource development that present the greatest challenges to GHG emissions control, and hence, the biggest potential benefits if adequately managed."

 

    Access the complete 30-page report (click here). [#Climate, #Energy/OilSands]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals