It’s Getting Hot In Here

Tropical Cyclone Nargis slammed into Burma this weekend, leaving as many as 60,000 missing or dead and millions displaced. A massive sea surge, shown here, engulfed the low-lands and stretched tens of kilometers inland as far as the capitol, Rangoon, in the red box.

For more information on the path and effects of the storm, click here.

From the scientific community, is this a sign of climate change? No singular weather event can be called climate change, but whether there is a measurable increase in the frequency of such storms as this, Katrina and Gonu on the Arabian peninsula last year is still an object of contention. See the National Post for arguments on both sides, but I think we’re all pretty clear that there’s more of this coming.

Lastly, a recent report noted that climate change will affect tropical species as much as arctic ones. The loss of wetlands and rich coastal ecosystems is yet another worry.

[Update - May 1st, 2008: "Burning the Future: Coal in America" will be airing again soon on the Sundance Channel, May 13th, 16th, and 18th. In addition, the DVD's will go on sale next week on the film's website: www.burningthefuture.com.]

Can coal ever be clean?

These guys are spending tens of millions trying to convince you, the American voter, that the future of America’s energy lies with “clean coal.”

A new documentary film, “Burning the Future: Coal in America” aims to clue Americans in on why “slightly less deadly coal” is probably a more accurate term for what the spooked coal industry is trying to push these days. Or maybe “laundered coal.” But “clean?” Well check out the trailer and see what you think:

Continue reading ‘Can Coal Ever Be Clean? Check Out “Burning the Future: Coal In America” to Find Out’

Econ 101 taught us increased supply = lower prices. That’s the main argument for new liquefied natural gas import terminals. Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal warns things are a bit more complicated than that and we shouldn’t bet on LNG to reduce North American natural gas prices. This is Econ 202 stuff at least…

Amidst concerns about a potential North American natural gas supply crunch, several energy developers are betting big on new terminals to import liquefied natural gas into the United States market. Three terminals are proposed in Oregon, and they have generated considerably controversy and strong opposition from local communities.

There are many reasons to be concerned about imported liquefied natural gas, or LNG, natural gas that has been supercooled to -260 degrees F in order to turn it into a liquid ready to transport on specially-designed tankers from LNG exporting countries like Indonesia, Russia, Iran and Qatar. From increased dependence on foreign fossil fuels to increased greenhouse gas emissions, seized farmland for new pipelines and health and safety concerns, citizens of potentially impacted communities have found plenty of reasons to rally against LNG terminals and pipelines.

The principle argument to forge ahead with new LNG terminals despite these concerns is the assumption that increasing North American natural gas supplies with LNG imports will reduce prices. It’s a simple “laws” of supply and demand that increased supply will reduce prices, right? That’s what we all learned in economics 101, right?

Unfortunately, a recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal (April 18th) warns us that the economics of LNG is a bit more complicated than that. This is economics 202 stuff at least (the online copy is here, sub$cr. required).

The gist of the story is that we shouldn’t be betting on increased LNG imports to help lower natural gas prices in the US. Read on to find out why…
Continue reading ‘WSJ Says: Don’t Bet on LNG to Reduce US Natural Gas Prices’

The World Health Organization estimates that 150,000 people die annually due to climate change related causes including in floods, droughts, and heat waves. It’s for this reason that the WHO chose to name World Health Day 2008 “Protecting our Health from Climate Change,” thus recognizing the fact that climate change will dramatically affect global health. World Health Day, celebrated on 7 April, involved some pretty splendid celebrations worldwide, including a straight-from-IGHIH rap for the Southeast Asian Regional Office of the WHO (see below for lyrics). Two days later - yesterday - the US celebrated with a presentation to Congress by Howard Frumkin, one of the directors for the Center for Disease Control, on the public health impacts of climate change. “CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern,” he said — but he still kept a lot under wraps.

Mr. Frumkin presented the fact that climate change will directly impact health in the United States, particularly the health of children and the elderly. He described the increase in droughts, heat waves, flooding, increased extreme weather events, and the spread of vectorborne diseases. Yet, in a move more worthy of Fossil Fool’s Day than World Health Day, he then did not comment on whether carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, was thus a public health threat. Instead, his cautious phrasing was: “To the science, there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas… and there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health.” Thanks, Frumkin!

The issue is, if Frumkin, the CDC, or the WHO do declare that because of the “strong evidence” connecting the simple dots, they would force the EPA to recognize that carbon dioxide IS a danger to public health, which would thus mean that the US EPA would be required to regulate it, according to a Supreme Court decision last year. But the EPA is stalling, saying that such a regulation would have major implications across sectors. Yeah! Exactly! This week, a coalition of states, led by Massachusetts, have brought this issue back to the US Court of Appeals, demanding that the EPA publish its findings related to emissions, after their 2003 claim that there remained “substantial scientific uncertainty” regarding the impacts of greenhouse gases. There wasn’t uncertainty then; there isn’t now. And as James Milkey, head of the environmental protection division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, said to NY Times reporters, “One year ago today, the court rejected E.P.A.’s claim that it lacks authority under existing law to regulate greenhouse gases. It has the duty to regulate, not just the authority.”

Continue reading ‘World Health Day: Raps & Under Wraps’

You may have heard this piece of wisdom in Econ 101. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone is footing the bill.

The mass material affluence that characterizes much of American society is a testament to the power of our economic and political system. The cities we inhabit, the cars we drive, the gadgets we use, the ways we communicate, the food we eat, and the energy we consume are all products of its success.

But remember, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone is footing the bill.

Allow me to modify that statement. There is no such thing as a dollar menu. Transactions inflict costs on the real world that are not reflected in a market pricing system.

A friend of mine is particularly fond of McDonald’s Dollar menu, and makes a habit of ordering $1 cheeseburgers. The $1 he spends covers the costs McDonald’s has incurred - buying the ingredients, shipping, operational, and labor costs - and of course a slice of profit. However, those are only a fraction of his cheeseburger’s true cost. Enter the world of externalities.

The Economist defines an externality as “An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affects somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices.” (1) My friend’s dollar spent does not include the side-effects of cheeseburger consumption, such as longterm costs of carbon emitted by transport and methane toots of former cows. Entirely unconsidered is the irreversible loss of biodiversity from the conversion of rain forest to industrial soy-bean monocrops to feed the hamburgers-in-waiting of American factory farms (2). Humans and nonhumans alike bear the cost of our externalities.

Continue reading ‘Sustainable Justice’

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968

There are few speeches that people remember. Most of us know at least the first few lines from the Gettysburg Address, or FDR’s ‘a date which will live in infamy’ response to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. And who hasn’t heard a politician quote from JFK’s inaugural ‘ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country’ speech? But no speech is more powerful or symbolic of a movement than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’.

On this fortieth anniversary of King’s assassination, I feel that it is important for all of us to stop and take a minute to appreciate all the amazing strides the civil rights movement made in the 60’s. Dr. King and other civil rights leaders laid the groundwork for the social justice movements going on today. As we continue to strive for equality and we work to improve our environment, take some time to remember how far we have come and be inspired by the changes we have already made.

The bustling halls of the United Nations climate negotiations still ringing in my ears, it’s been an incredible few months since I and other youth delegates from SustainUS returned from Bali. So many friends and neighbors emailed or stopped by to say “Thanks for sending your email updates from Bali!” and “Welcome home!” I still feel the excitement of working with the best & brightest of the youth climate movement around the world.

Upon returning from Bali as a US youth delegate, I was filled with hope that humanity will create a global consciousness by rising to meet the climate emergency. In the last few months, worsening scientific predictions have only strengthened my belief that we are the leaders we seek. It’s up to us. We have the power to make the climate emergency, and the immense economic opportunities we will realize from solving it, our top priority. A bold, broad movement is needed on a scale larger than the mobilization for World War II. This mobilization will only be accomplished by unleashing a renewed civic engagement.

Continue reading ‘Post-Bali Dispatch: “Lighting Up” a movement in Upstate New York!’

[So I know Jamie beat me to the punch, and I owe Dana a tip of the hat for bringing the interview to my attention, but here's my rant on Hillary's apparent love for coal...]

In an interview on West Virginia Public Radio this morning, Hillary Clinton revealed some pretty profound ignorance about the true costs of coal and especially about the destruction mountain top coal mining is wrecking on both communities and ecosystems in Appalachia. Give it a listen:

Sure sounds like Hillary has drunk the (sour) kool-aid being peddled by coal-front group “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices” (or ABEC, which might as well stand for “American Blowhards Excited about Coal”). Lets compare what Hillary is stumping and what the coal industry’s PR machine has to say:

Continue reading ‘Hillary Clinton Loves Her Some Coal’

Originally posted at http://www.dreamreborn.org/ on March 17th by Van Jones:

On April 4, 1968, a sniper assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The preeminent civil rights leader of his time, King had come to Memphis, Tennessee, to aid striking sanitation workers. He was only 39 years old.

Forty years have passed since that fateful day. As of this month, Dr. King has been gone from us longer than he was ever here. As we pass this milestone in history, we gather in Memphis to remind ourselves and the world that - though a bullet killed the dreamer - it did not kill the dream.

Dr. King had a vision of an America as good as its promise, and a world at peace with itself. That vision lives on in the hearts of hundreds of millions - including two generations of adults and a rising generation of teen-agers, all of whom have been born since King’s passing. The time has come for us to step forward. We must take full responsibility to advance the cause of justice, opportunity and peace.

It must be said that we are stepping onto history’s stage at a frightening time—at a time when “the Market” is free, and the people are not.

A time of global warming and global war. A time of mass incarceration of people, and mass extinction of species. A time of “no rules” for the rich, and “no rights” for the poor. A time when our courts seem to give nothing but evictions and convictions to those on the bottom. A time of increasing profits for the few, and decreasing options for the many. Continue reading ‘Shining a New Light - Some words from Van Jones’

By Camila Thorndike and Sarah Judkins

Climate change is the unthinkable. It is unimaginably vast and catastrophic, and its causes are frustratingly avoidable. As youth activists, we are used to this - but the very real idea of new coal plants in Washington still took us aback. After all, we are one of the lowest carbon-emitting states in the nation, and we have repeatedly proven ourselves as dedicated international leaders on the climate action front. The geology of our region, including the mighty hydropower production of the Colombia river, has made this possible.

For better or for worse, another local feature has been recruited as a key player in the power game: our cavernous Colombia River Basin basalt beds, just the right sort to house to potentially calcify liquid carbon from a coal gasification power plant. The complications of hydropower in Washington pale in comparison to those of a proposed “clean” (aka slightly-less-deadly) coal plant, which a consortium aims to construct in the coming years at Wallula, a town near Walla Walla on the Colombia river.

Once again, rural southeastern Washington has made headlines in the energy world with promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while providing an abundance of energy for the Northwest.

Wait a minute… clean coal? It’s an idea - and nothing more - that has somehow become a “reality” for people through the constant repetition of half-truths. Perhaps you’ve seen the sexy ads for “America’s Power” on the Democratic primary debates, which follow Hillary and Barack’s promises for a clean, independent energy future . Politicians love to portray America as the “Saudi Arabia of coal.” We don’t think this is something to boast about.

This dirty fossil fuel sickens communities, pollutes our air and water, and is responsible for one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it provides approximately half of our nation’s electric energy needs, which presents a daunting economic and political conundrum.
Continue reading ‘Proposed Plant Stalled in Eastern Washington’