On Tuesday, President Bush created three new marine national monuments in the Pacific Ocean.  The newly protected areas will cover 195,280 square miles (roughly the size of Spain), and includes a series of isolated islands in the Pacific, along with the Mariana Trench, which is the deepest ocean canyon on earth.  With this act, Bush will have protected more ocean, over the course of his term, than any person in history.

The monuments are being created under the powers of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which is traditionally used to protect statues and cultural sites.  Under the new designation, oil and gas exploration, as well as commercial fishing, in the protected areas will be severely restricted.

Apparently, First lady Laura Bush played a significant role in the crafting of the policy.  She solicited input from outside scientists, and stood in direct opposition to Vice President Cheney, who argued against the designation. 

It is clear that despite Bush’s generally negative reputation among environmentalists (stemming greatly from his opposition to greenhouse gas regulations and pro-drilling stance), this decision should go a long way towards improving his environmental legacy.

Although this event occurred in 2005 at Ormat Technology’s Puna Geothermal Plant on the Big Island of Hawaii, scientists only recently released a full analysis of the nature of this discovery and the events surrounding it.

Basically, engineers at the Puna Plant, which opened in 1993 and produces 30 MW of commercial power, were drilling a standard injection hole into the earth when, at a depth of 2488 m, they hit a pool of dacite magma.  At this point, the magma flowed 5.5 m up the wellbore (which is 26 cm diameter) where it cooled and solidified.  Engineers attempted to drill more holes in that vicinity– all of which also struck magma.

It is believed that this is the first time live magma has been accidentally encountered by drillers.  The temperature of the dacite magma (which is very uncommon in Hawaiian geology) was estimated to be around 1050°C (1922°F), which would make this geothermal operation possibly the hottest commercial well ever drilled.  Traditionally, geothermal well holes reach temperatures of around 500°C. 

The Puna Plant sits on the geologically active Kilauea Lower East Rift Zone that has seen lava flows as recently as 1955, 1960, and 1972.  Although geothermal resources are mostly limited to the Big Island (as it is volcanically active), it is estimated that geothermal could actually provide 100% of the energy demand there.  Clean energy has been a hot topic for Hawaii lately, given the recent announcement that Better Place would be building-up electric car infrastructure there– which (of course) only makes real sense if the electricity it is using is clean.

As of January 1, every 2009 model year and newer car sold in California now carries a label that ranks that vehicle’s environmental impact.  The label can be found under the hood on the emissions control information label.  There are two rankings (global warming score and smog score) on a scale from 1 to 10, with five being the average score in the state.  The more environmentally friendly a car is, the higher the ranking.

Check out this link to see the top 10 cleanest cars.

For the past three years, Venezuela’s state oil company has provided heating oil to low-income households in the U.S. through it’s subsidiary, Citgo Petroleum.  Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, began this program after meeting with the Reverend Jesse Jackson a few years ago.  For Chavez, the program was a chance to tweak the U.S. government, with which he is constantly at odds.

However, with the dramatically lower price of oil, Venezuela is no longer able to afford these subsidies and has announced it will be ending the program.  And while Chavez relies heavily on payments to the poor in order to maintain his legitimacy, once oil fell below $90 per barrel, Venezuela’s budget became unsustainable.  Naturally, foreign subsidies like this program are the first to be cut.  Whether he has the money, or not, Chavez cannot afford to allow his massive domestic subsidies to wither– which is a fundamental reason why he has so strongly supported OPEC’s efforts to increase the price of oil.

Check out this cool interactive map that was created by the Rocky Mountain Institute, as part of a grant from Google.org. The map shows how much oil the U.S. has imported, from where, and how much we have spent every month since 1973.

Google explains:

“By clicking on the green light to play, you can see the countries supplying oil to the U.S. (either in terms of barrels or dollar value) and how our imports have changed over the last 35 years. The thicker the line in the map, the more oil produced or imported.”

Watching this dynamic map just further drives home the point that we need to get off of oil now.  And to answer those who chant “DBD,” we would suggest pressing the “ANWR” and “Offshore Drilling” buttons on the lower left side of the map.

NASA is directing its satellites to look downwards at the American Midwest, in order to analyze crop productivity and to measure the effects of shifting croplands to biofuel production.

Christopher Potter, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, described this program at the American Geophysical Union meeting last month.  His team’s research uses satellite data and computer models to track changes in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pools resulting from the widespread agricultural transformation towards biofuels.

The satellite data is used to map the shifting vegetation cover and carbon pools in croplands.  There is concern that biofuel production utilizes more crop waste, such as corn stalks, which previously would have been left in the field as fertilizer.  This could result in the soil becoming less fertile for growing.

Potter stated, “If the soils become progressively depleted over several years of cropping because more and more the plant material…is being taken away for biofuel, then the thinking is that will detrimentally affect the soil carbon.” 

Additionally, Potter noted that the researchers are tracking “how much is being produced on an acre by acre basis in any given crop… [and] how many new acres of a given crop are being planted, presumably for biofuel generation.”

By determining what type of crops are being planted and how the process is effecting the health of the soil and carbon emissions, Potter hopes that this work will “benefit [both] the environmental community and the growing community.”

Resource: Ethanol Producer Magazine

Despite the multitude of news articles and opinion pieces in recent months published in opposition to a livestock emissions fee from the EPA, that agency has never proposed such a fee and (at least under this administration) says that it lacks the authority to even do so.

From Factcheck.org:

“This one is a case study in how lobbyists sometimes justify their own salaries by loudly fighting against hypothetical but non-existent threats from Washington.

“The source of this hokum is a misleading news release put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation on Nov. 20. The highly inaccurate headline read: “AFBF Opposes EPA-Proposed Tax on Livestock.” In truth, however, the Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t proposed any tax on livestock. In fact, the Farm Bureau’s own documentation admitted as much.

“Along with its news release, the Farm Bureau issued a backup document titled “How EPA Regulation Could Lead to a ‘Cow Tax.’ ” Note the word “could,” indicating a possibility, not a certainty. The document said: “We do not know what direction EPA might take in any final proposal.” It said a tax on livestock might be among “potential consequences” of an EPA attempt to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, as authorized by the Supreme Court. Livestock, of course, naturally produce methane, a greenhouse gas.

“What prompted all this is an “advance notice of proposed rulemaking” that EPA published July 30. This was far from a proposal to tax. In a preface, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson stated: “None of the views or alternatives raised in this notice represents Agency decisions or policy recommendations. It is premature to do so.” Rather, the EPA sought public comment on “potential regulatory approaches” to regulating greenhouse gases. As the Farm Bureau backup document itself put it: “The lengthy ANPR was not a proposed regulation but a preliminary notice seeking informed comments from affected parties on what the impacts of such a comprehensive regulatory approach might be.” Nowhere in the long document is any call for a fee or a tax on livestock or the methane they naturally produce….

“EPA issued a statement saying it isn’t proposing a tax and doesn’t have legal authority to impose one anyway:

EPA, Dec. 10: EPA is not proposing a cow tax. The CAA (Clean Air Act) does not include a broad grant of authority for EPA to impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges specifically for GHGs (greenhouse gases) and, therefore, additional legislative authority may be required if EPA were to administer such charges.

“But just because a proposal doesn’t exist doesn’t stop lobbyists from lobbying against it, or politicians from publicly denouncing it, or newspapers from covering it.”

And it would seem that although the farm lobby was successful at getting this issue into the public consciousness, there is always the chance for unintended consequences.  By loudly sounding the alarm for a threat that was not apparent, the Farm Bureau may have unintentionally awakened a pro-regulation group. 

In fact, it wasn’t until the flurry of opinion pieces (and politicians) coming out against the nonexistent proposal, that we at ForceChange really began covering the issue.  Now, our readers are well informed of the situation, including the fact that according to the UN, activities relating to the production of livestock account for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions– which is more than that released by cars, buses, and airplanes.

Photo credit

Hat-tip: DailyGreen

As a reminder, we never share your information and you can unsubscribe from the list at anytime.  If you would like to become a subscriber, please enter your information here:

A failing economy may accomplish what environmental and geopolitical necessity could not– which is, cause the government to increase the national gas tax.  A congressionally sponsored commission is set to recommend that the national gas tax should be raised by 10 cents per gallon in order to cover the massive shortfall the national Highway Trust Fund is facing. 

The current lack of funds, which are used to reduce congestion, improve roads, and expand transit, is a result of two problems.  First, the high gas prices in the beginning of 2008 and the failing economy in the end of the year, caused drivers to substantially cut-back on their driving habits.  As a result, between October 2007 and September 2008, the Highway Trust Fund took in $3 billion less than it did the prior year.  Second, even when Americans were driving a lot, the revenues raised by the gas tax were insufficient to properly maintain and upgrade our transportation infrastructure.

Robert Atkinson, chairman of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission which conducted the study explained, “We’ve basically had a 30-year experiment in this country in under-investing in surface transportation infrastructure.”

In order to fix this two-headed problem of decreasing revenue and under-funding of projects, the commission is going to recommend increasing revenues through higher gas taxes and a new commitment by government to maintain and upgrade transportation infrastructure.

In the long-term, however, the commission notes that gas tax revenues will continue to sink as Americans purchase more fuel-efficient cars.  As a result, the commission is going to recommend that we also implement fees that charge drivers for the amount they drive, rather than just the fuel they consume, which would include mechanisms like congestion pricing and tolls.

While charging drivers for the amount of time they spend on the roads makes a lot of sense, it is addressing only the infrastructure half of our problem.  The other half– environmental destruction and dependency on foreign oil, must not be ignored by any change in policy. 

The short-term recommendation to raise the gas tax will help create a disincentive to consume petroleum, but in the long-term we need to institutionalize this policy.  A shift away from gas taxes to congestion pricing in the long-term, while great for addressing our infrastructure problems, could lessen the pressure to reduce consumption of gas itself.  As a result, we think a long-term plan should also include a big and predictable gas tax that gives drivers a disincentive to consume oil and gives companies an incentive to build products that do the same.

Reference: Reuters

Photo credit

 In his weekly video address, Obama covered major issues like health care, education, jobs, and energy.  Some highlights:

“To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we will double renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient…

“…we need an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that not only creates jobs in the short-term but spurs economic growth and competitiveness in the long-term. And this plan must be designed in a new way - we can’t just fall into the old Washington habit of throwing money at the problem. We must make strategic investments that will serve as a down payment on our long-term economic future. We must demand vigorous oversight and strict accountability for achieving results. And we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down. That is how we will achieve the number one goal of my plan - which is to create three million new jobs…”

NASA describes the images as:

The Thematic Mapper on NASA’s Landsat 5 satellite captured these images of the Kingston Fossil Plant and its surroundings on November 20, 2008, a month before the spill (bottom); and December 22, 2008, immediately after the spill, (top). In these false-color images, water appears blue, and sediment-laden water appears light blue. Vegetation appears green, and bare ground and urbanized areas appear pinkish-brown.

In the November image, walls visibly contain two adjacent slurry ponds at the plant-one in the northwest and one in the southeast-but in the December image, the walls of the northwestern slurry pond have given way. In this image, light blue slurry covers the ground to the north and east of the plant. Sediment also clogs the nearby Emory River, evident from the waterway’s relatively light blue color.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

Hat-tip: TheDailyGreen

Despite claims this week that Ukraine would permit natural gas intended for the EU from Russia to be delivered, there are reports from Poland and Hungary that deliveries from the pipeline have begun to fall.  Poland is reporting a 6% decrease in deliveries and Hungary a 25% decrease. 

Russia claims that Ukraine is illegally siphoning off gas intended for these countries, while Ukraine asserts that it is Russia that has decreased the output.  Leaders of both nations are currently trying to make their case to EU leaders.

Russian natural gas monopoly, Gazprom says that Ukraine can no longer be trusted and that it will have to find an alternative route to get gas to Europe.  Whether this is practicable remains to be seen.  Fortunately, the EU nations have substantial natural gas reserves, having experienced a similar situation in 2006, the last time these two neighbors reached an impasse.

Via AFP (link may expire)

California, which traditionally has some of the highest gasoline prices in the nation, is continuing to see a mini-price spike that began a few weeks ago.  On Friday, the average price per gallon of gas in San Diego County rose to $1.865.  This marks the 16th day out of the last 18 that the price of gas has increased in that region.  In comparison, the national average price is at $1.626 per gallon. 

Although California prices are still way below record highs seen during the summer (San Diego peaked at $4.63), the recent volatility is a reminder of the continuing vulnerability we have as a society to this finite and polluting resource.  Maybe this little price spike will act as a reminder that we cannot enter another phase of complacency.

Photo credit

Underlining the fact that people tend to focus on issues that effect them personally, the Lake Tahoe region in the Sierra Nevadas is joining the fight against climate change.  Like Aspen, the Lake Tahoe area derives much of its revenue from snow-related tourism.  With climate change threatening the very snow pack that supports these activities, Lake Tahoe is implementing a comprehensive plan to help reduce emissions.

Government agencies in the Tahoe Basin are integrating climate change policies into their immediate plans.  The “Climate Change Action Plan,” being developed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), aims to increase energy efficiencies and to improve the health of the lake itself.  Goals ranging from LEED certified buildings, to solar panel installations, to cleaner transportation initiatives, are all part of the plan. 

Dennis Oliver of the TRPA sums up the situation:

“There’s a of focus on the lake.  After all, the lake is the reason we’re here.  Short of going to Beijing and having them retire their coal-fired factories, Tahoe’s goals are simple: the management of building codes and emissions.”

Photo credit

As the Russian halt of natural gas deliveries intended for Ukraine entered its second day, Ukrainian officials began touring European capitals to provide reassurances that transport of natural gas through Ukraine to the rest of Europe would continue.  Since almost all natural gas delivered from Russia to EU countries must travel through Ukraine, concerns have been raised that Ukraine might divert some of that gas for its own use.  This is what happened the last time Russia halted natural gas deliveries to Ukraine in 2006.

However, Ukraine asserts that it has enough natural gas reserves to last it through the winter, and regardless, will continue to permit transit of all Russian natural gas through its country to the EU.

While Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has stated a compromise will be reached soon with Russia, Gazprom’s chief executive Alexei Miller quashed these hopes by saying that Ukraine would have to pay $418 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas in 2009, which would be more than double last year’s price.  Highlighting the contentious nature of the situation, this offer was an increase from the $250 price that Russia offered Ukraine just last week.  Ukraine paid $179.50 for Russian gas in 2008, which was well under the price paid by EU countries for the same product.

This dispute continues to highlight the dangers of being too dependent on a foreign country for one’s energy resources.  Currently, around 25% of the natural gas used in the EU comes from Russia, most of which is pumped in pipelines that pass through Ukraine.

Via: AFP (link may expire)