Re: Stop Fracking Now

I bet you're wondering what the heck "fracking" is. That's a good question.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a controversial drilling technique used by the oil and gas industry that has injected millions of tons of highly toxic chemical fluids into the ground to break apart shale and release natural gas.

Scientists believe these chemicals are poisoning America's drinking water.

That didn't stop Vice President Dick Cheney from exempting fracking from the Safe Water Drinking Act in the 2005 Energy Bill or the natural gas industry from unleashing a massive 34-state drilling campaign.

Now, six years later, with the facts stacking up showing the damage being caused and the American lives being placed at risk, a few members of Congress are standing up to close the loophole and hold the oil and gas production industry to the same standards as any other industry to ensure the safe protection of America's drinking water.

But they'll need our help to win. Join us in calling on Congress to pass the FRAC Act now.

Representatives Diana DeGette, Jared Polis, and Maurice Hinchey have introduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act in the U.S. House while Senators Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer have introduced the companion bill in the U.S. Senate.

In the past, the oil and gas industry has spent millions of dollars fighting against these common-sense regulations and have succeeded in defeating similar bills. This time, we're not going to let Congress fight the industry alone.

That's why Democracy for America is building a coalition of grassroots activists and environmental organizations to work together with leaders in Congress to pass the FRAC Act this year.

We'll educate the public, expose scientific studies that reveal the real risks, hold rallies, meetings, public forums, and organize grassroots action until we win.

Please add your name and join the campaign to protect America's drinking water right now.

It's been reported that since 1999 more than 90 percent of the natural gas wells have used the fracking process. Because of the Safe Water Drinking Act exemption, industry is not required to reveal the exact chemicals used in fracking, but researchers in independent scientific studies suspect 65 percent of the compounds used in fracking are hazardous to human health.

It only takes low concentrations of benzene and diesel fuel, two compounds found in fracking studies, to lead to severe health and environmental consequences and illnesses traced to fracking have been documented in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Alabama.

As if that wasn't enough to demand proper regulation and environmental oversight, a recent New York Times article revealed that the inability to properly process wastewater from fracking, may even be allowing radioactive materials into local rivers, streams, and drinking water.

The oil and gas industry is too big and too powerful for us to let members of Congress take them on alone. It's up to us to stand with them, fight back, and make sure they have the support they'll need to win.

Join the campaign at www.StopFrackingNow.com today.

Thank you for everything you do.

-Jim

Jim Dean, Chair

Democracy for America

Democracy for America relies on you and the people-power of more than one million members to fund the grassroots organizing and training that delivers progressive change on the issues that matter. Please Contribute Today and support our mission.

Paid for by Democracy for America, http://www.democracyforamerica.com/?akid=649.1758181.DZ_PzB&t=3 and not authorized by any candidate. Contributions to Democracy for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Progressive Minded-Power utilities support EPA 'air toxic rule'

... EPA recently released its proposed Air Toxics Rule, which would regulate the emission of mercury and other brain-warping, lung-destroying nasties. We're still in the public comment period, so the PR battle is in full swing.

Cross Populated via: Grist

Republicans and dirty utilities have raised Cain over the rule, screeching that it will be too expensive and cause blackouts and raise prices and anyway we don't have the technology to do this! Oh, the vapors.

Most of these objections are unfounded. See, for instance, this post on the reliability canard and this post on the technology canard. One thing the right has done extremely effectively, though, is to frame this as yet another battle of EPA vs. Industry, which is comfortable ground for them. So it's nice to see some companies pushing back.

A coalition of electric power companies -- including some of the nation's largest, representing 170,000 MW of generating capacity, 110,000 of it fossil fuel-based -- released a letter [PDF] today supporting the toxics rule. They say, "we expect compliance with the rule will promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation, all without compromising the reliability of our electric system."

This bit from the letter makes a crucial point:

Since 2000, the electric industry has been anticipating that EPA would regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions, and as a result, many companies have already taken steps to install control technologies that will allow them to comply with requirements of the rule on time. The technologies to control emissions at coal-fired power plants, including mercury and hydrochloric acid, are available and cost-effective. However, if additional time is needed to install control technologies, EPA has the authority to authorize a plant up to one additional year to comply.

This is one of the under-covered aspects of this debate: This rule is not being sprung on industry. It's been in the works for over a decade. Lots of smart, forward-looking utilities have made investments in anticipation and are now well-positioned to comply with the rule.

Then there's another set of utilities -- hide-bound, backward-looking, usually regulated monopolies for whom competition and innovation are alien concepts -- that has done nothing but fight EPA rules and delay those investments. They have relied on their patrons in Congress (and for many years, the Bush administration) to protect them.

Now the jig is up. Naturally, they're squawking. But let's be clear: It's not "industry" that opposes EPA here. It's a specific set of dirty utilities and their representatives in the Republican Party. They don't deserve the status of industry spokesmen that the media has allowed them to claim. And they don't deserve the right to delay crucial public health protections for the rest of us.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Contact Your Government Official

Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested   Tell My Politician

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Plain English Guide-Clean Air Act

Reducing Toxic Air Pollutants

Toxic air pollutants, or air toxics, are known to cause or are suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, reproduction problems, and other serious illnesses. Exposure to certain levels of some toxic air pollutants can cause difficulty in breathing, nausea or other illnesses. Exposure to certain toxic pollutants can even cause death.

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs)

PBTs such as mercury and DDT last for a long time in the environment with little change in their structure or toxic effects. This means that a persistent toxic chemical transported in the wind can be just as toxic 10,000 miles away as it was at the smokestack from which it was released. Some PBTs, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), have been found in remote parts of the Arctic, far away from the industrial sources that produce them.

Some of the PBTs that move through the air are deposited into water bodies and are concentrate up through the food chain, harming fish-eating animals and people. Small fish may consume plants that live in water contaminated by PBTs, which are absorbed into plant tissues. Big fish eat smaller fish and as the PBTs pass up the food chain, their levels go up. So a large fish consumed by people may have a much higher concentration of PBTs in its tissues than the simple plant first absorbing the PBTs. PBTs can concentrate in big fish to levels thousands of times the levels found in the contaminated water.

Over 2000 U.S. water bodies are covered by fish consumption advisories, warning people not to eat the fish because of contamination with chemicals, usually PBTs. Those compounds have been linked to illnesses such as cancer, birth defects, and nervous system disorders.

The 1990 Clean Air Act gave EPA the authority to reduce PBT levels by requiring pollution sources to install control devices or change production methods.

Some toxic air pollutants are of concern because they degrade slowly or not at all, as in the case of metals such as mercury or lead. These persistent air toxics can remain in the environment for a long time and can be transported great distances. Toxic air pollutants, like mercury or polychlorinated biphenyls, deposited onto soil or into lakes and streams persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. They can affect living systems and food chains, and eventually affect people when they eat contaminated food. This can be particularly important for American Indians or other communities where cultural practices or subsistence life styles are prevalent.

The majority of air toxics come from manmade sources, such as factory smokestack emissions and motor vehicle exhaust.

Gasoline also contains air toxics. When you put fuel in your car, gases escape and form a vapor. You can smell these vapors when you refuel your vehicle.

When cars and trucks burn gasoline, toxic air pollutants are emitted from the tailpipe. Those air toxics are combustion products-chemicals that are produced when gasoline is burned. EPA is working with industries to develop cleaner-burning fuels and more efficient engines, and is taking steps to make sure that pollution control devices installed in motor vehicles work properly. EPA has issued requirements that are leading to cleaner-burning diesel engines, reducing releases of particle pollution and air toxics.

Air toxics are also released from industrial sources, such as chemical factories, refineries, and incinerators, and even from small industrial and commercial sources, such as dry cleaners and printing shops. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA has regulated both large and small sources of air toxics, but has mainly focused efforts on larger sources.

Before the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA regulated air toxics one chemical at a time. This approach did not work well. Between 1970 and 1990, EPA established regulations for only seven pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments took a completely different approach to reducing toxic air pollutants. The Amendments required EPA to identify categories of industrial sources for 187 listed toxic air pollutants and to take steps to reduce pollution by requiring sources to install controls or change production processes. It makes good sense to regulate by categories of industries rather than one pollutant at a time, since many individual sources release more than one toxic chemical. Developing controls and process changes for industrial source categories can result in major reductions in releases of multiple pollutants at one time.

EPA has published regulations covering a wide range of industrial categories, including chemical plants, incinerators, dry cleaners, and manufacturers of wood furniture. Harmful air toxics from large industrial sources, such as chemical plants, petroleum refineries, and paper mills, have been reduced by nearly 70 percent. These regulations mostly apply to large, so-called "major" sources and also to some smaller sources known as "area" sources. In most cases, EPA does not prescribe a specific control technology, but sets a performance level based on a technology or other practices already used by the better-controlled and lower emitting sources in an industry. EPA works to develop regulations that give companies as much flexibility as possible in deciding how they reduce their toxic air emissions-as long as the companies meet the levels required in the regulations.

The 1990 Clean Air Act requires EPA to first set regulations using a technology-based or performance-based approach to reduce toxic emissions from industrial sources. After EPA sets the technology-based regulations, the Act requires EPA to evaluate any remaining ("residual") risks, and decide whether it is necessary to control the source further. That assessment of remaining risk was initiated in the year 2000 for some of the industries covered by the technology-based standards.

Chemical Emergencies

The 1984 chemical disaster that resulted in thousands of deaths in Bhopal, India, inspired sections of the 1990 Clean Air Act that require factories and other businesses to develop plans to prevent accidental releases of highly toxic chemicals.

The 1990 Act also established the Chemical Safety Board, an independent agency that investigates and reports on accidental releases of toxic chemicals from industrial facilities. The Board operates much like the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that investigates airplane and train crashes. The Chemical Safety Board assembles the information necessary to determine how and why an accident involving toxic chemicals happened. The goal is to apply understanding of accidents to prevent other accidents involving toxic chemicals.

Air Toxics and Risk

The Clean Air Act requires a number of studies to help EPA better characterize risks to human health and the environment from air toxics. Those studies provide information for rulemaking and support national and local efforts to address risks through pollution prevention and other voluntary programs. Among these risk reduction initiatives are:

• The Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy includes local and community-based initiatives to reduce local toxic air emissions. The primary goal of the strategy is to reduce public health risks from both indoor and outdoor sources of toxic air pollutants. More information can be found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw.
• The Great Waters Program incorporates activities to investigate and reduce the deposition of toxic air pollutants to the "Great Waters," which include the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, the Great Lakes, National Estuary Program areas, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. To learn more, visit www.epa.gov/glnpo.
• Initiatives targeting emission reductions of persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) like mercury, DDT (a pesticide banned in the United States), and dioxins.

 

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?
March 26, 2011

Powder River Basin Distribution Legend Low Res

This weekend’s question may have no good answer.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans to auction off 758 million tons of coal in Wyoming over the next few months. Then on Friday, the Bureau of Land Management explained they will be selling off another 1.6 billion tons of coal at a future date.

Salazar claims coal could play a role in the “clean energy future,” but that isn’t true, of course — except in an alternative universe where CO2 has a high and rising price and carbon capture and storage pans out — neither of which seems likely even if Obama weren’t now indifferent to serious climate action (see Harvard: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh! and Studyfind leaks from CO2 stored deep underground could contaminate drinking water).

The coal represents a staggering amount of future CO2 emissions, as Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explain:

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants, further cementing the United States as a leading contributor to climate disruption … Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy. Interior, for example, touted that in 2010, 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy development were authorized. And in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year … Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from coal combustion lasts a long, long, long time (see Fossil CO2 impacts will outlast Stonehenge and nuclear waste). And that’s a major reason unrestricted burning of coal is just bad for humans (see Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated” and A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice).

So this decision just makes no sense, though Grist offers one explanation for cynics: Obama administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

This decision certainly eviscerates Salazar’s green street cred that he had developed by aggressively pushing renewable energy on public lands. It fits into an emerging pattern with offshore drilling and the continued embrace of uber-expensive nuclear power and the abandonment of any effort to pass serious climate legislation that suggests perhaps Obama really doesn’t get it at all. If so, it’s time for people like science advisor John Holdren to contemplate resigning and moving on to a job where he can do more good — like leading a national effort of scientists to inform the public about the extreme dangers of burning all that coal.

What do you think? Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?      Burning The Future - Coal In America  Factors Affecting Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Combustors       Methane emissions from gassy coals in storage silos