Month: April 2011

Posted on

Obama’s Popularity and the Next Election may be Tied to Gas Prices

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Whenever prices at the gas pump soar, President Obama’s popularity takes a hit, he suggested at a private fundraising event—and which is backed up by a recent poll. House Speaker John Boehner argued high gas prices could even cost Obama the 2012 election.

Obama argued the long term solution is clean energy, but to try to help in the shorter term, though, the administration launched two new efforts. The Justice Department will conduct a probe into speculation in oil trading, to see if it is inflating oil prices, as Obama has claimed before. Also, a new federal program will aid homeowners in getting loans to pay for improvements that boost energy efficiency. “We’re making it easier for American homeowners to save money by saving energy,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said.

A “Crazy and Unsustainable” Policy

With the 2012 Presidential elections approaching, some Republican hopefuls have lit into Obama’s approach to energy. To help with high oil prices, last week Donald Trump supports Libyan intervention if the U.S. can take their oil. This week, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty called for opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as more offshore wells, while saying  Obama “sat on his hands” regarding drilling in America.

Despite calls to boost domestic fossil fuel production, “it is simply crazy and unsustainable to continue to subsidize the oil-and-gas companies when we need to reduce our deficit and invest elsewhere,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Several major oil-and-gas companies should report significant profit, according to the Associated Press.

Since the 2009 G20 meeting, Obama has been pushing for an end to fossil fuel subsidies around the world. Obama may be gaining traction on this issue, with Speaker Boehner saying oil companies “ought to be paying their fair share” of taxes.

Who Resurrected the Electric Car?

Electric cars have been resurrected, with the maker of the 2006 documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” to film a follow-up, “Revenge of the Electric Car.”

While electric cars are still a minuscule slice of the auto market, the market continues to shift in larger ways, according to a new report. As the economy has recovered somewhat from the Great Recession, sales of most kinds of cars have risen. But sales of small cars, hybrids, and diesels (which are often fuel efficient) are growing much faster than car sales as a whole. Compared to the first quarter last year, this year sales jumped roughly 25 to 45 percent for various classes of more efficient cars, but rose only 7 percent for SUVs.

Western Water Woes to Deepen

Water supplies in the Western U.S. will only get tighter as climate change worsens, according to a new report from the U.S. Department of the Interior, which billed it as “the first consistent and coordinated assessment of risks to future water supplies across eight major … river basins,” including the Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin. Flows in these three basins, the government report said, are likely to decline by 8 to 14 percent by 2050—a time frame in which future warming is largely already set by past emissions. In California, however, there’s large uncertainty about the impacts, making planning all the more difficult.

When it comes to moisture-loving fungi, climate change is already changing landscapes. Truffle-hunting dogs have turned up troves of the valuable fungi in Germany, where they were never known to exist before, a new study reports. Although the study was on expensive edible fungi, the findings could have much wider implications. “Without fungi, plants don’t work,” the study leader, a fungal ecologist, told Wired Science. “We know climates are changing and that fungal habitats are shifting. What we’re not certain about are the effects.”

Nuclear Power Protests Mark Chernobyl Anniversary

With progress slow on controlling Japan’s damaged nuclear power plants, farmers from the area protested against nuclear power, and thousands protested in France and Germany against nukes in their countries.

Meanwhile, NRG Energy announced it is pulling the plug on a nuclear power plant it was building in Texas.

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

Posted on

Blockbuster Supreme Court Case on Emissions May Fizzle

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

A “blockbuster” court case that’s been wending its way through the courts for seven years finally reached the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court this week, who heard initial arguments that greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated because they’re a “public nuisance.”

In their questions, the justices were generally wary of getting courts involved in regulating greenhouse gases. “Asking a court to set standards for emissions sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does,” said one justice, referring to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA is currently authorized to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, and they have set out a timeline for slowly phasing in regulations—but their ability to do so may still be undercut by Congress, although several attempts to do so have failed so far.

New data show the global recession accomplished what other measures struggled to do: it made greenhouse gas emissions plummet. In 2009, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and the European Union both fell drastically—between 6 and 7 percent compared with the year before—according to new data from their respective environmental protection agencies.

Efforts to boost clean energy and energy efficiency are moving ahead—despite encountering opposition from sometimes unexpected corners. The U.S. government finally approved building the first U.S. offshore wind farm in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, which had long faced opposition from the Kennedy clan.

Gulf Still Faces Oil Threat on Anniversary of Spill

Activists anxious to cut emissions faster broke into the grounds of a coal-fired power plant near Chicago and unfurled a banner calling for the plant’s closure, before being arrested. The protest against all fossil fuel use was part of a Day Against Extraction, pegged to highlight the one-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Wednesday. Treehugger marked the date with a roundup of some of the past year’s best reporting on the spill. In a bit of unfortunate timing, the day was also marked by a spill of hydraulic fracturing fluid at a Pennsylvania natural gas well.

Although the Deepwater Horizon well has been plugged, the Gulf still faces a big risk from oil leaks, according to an investigation by the Associated Press. Based on federal documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, the AP reports there are 3,200 abandoned and unplugged oil and gas wells in the Gulf classified as active.

Are Smart Meters Vulnerable to Cyber Attack?

Now another battle is heating up, over smart meters, which provide power companies real-time information on their customers’ power consumption, and which could save energy and distribute electricity use more evenly throughout the day.

Residents of northern California, where the utility Pacific Gas & Electric has installed smart meters, were among the first to blame the meters for a variety of maladies. Rollouts of smart meters in Maine, British Columbia, and elsewhere are likewise encountering health scares. But the meters use signals like those from cordless phones, posing no special risk, according to a recent report by the California Council on Science and Technology.

In the U.K., where installation of smart meters is also under way, the security of the data seems to be a bigger concern, as research has shown the meters are vulnerable to attack by computer viruses or could be hacked.

The Donald Wants to Seize Middle East Oil

Real estate mogul Donald Trump, who said he’s considering running for president in 2012, blamed Obama for the high price of oil in the world. Trump proposed several remedies, including demanding the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries sell their oil for cheaper, as well as invading Libya to “take their oil,” and seizing Iraqi oil as reimbursement for the cost of war there.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund warned the world is facing increased oil scarcity, while the International Energy Agency echoed similar warnings of another recession triggered by high oil prices. It also urged Saudi Arabia to boost its oil production, since it’s the only country that claims to have substantial spare oil production capacity.

However, Saudi Arabia argued there’s actually an oversupply of oil, and that’s why it cut its production in April by about 800,000 barrels per day—a 9 percent drop—compared to the month before. The Financial Times questioned Saudi claims that the market is oversupplied, pointing out that the country’s oil minister said the same in November, and yet since then prices have risen from $86 to $121 a barrel.

President Obama disagreed, blaming speculators for high oil prices.

War for Oil After All?

Trump isn’t alone in talking about invasions providing better access to oil supplies, according to secret memos obtained by U.K. newspaper The Independent.

Politicians have roundly rebutted any link between oil and the war, with former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair saying in 2003, “the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it.” However, the memos reveal a different story. Months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.K. Foreign Office wrote in one memo: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there…”

“It has never seemed likely that the US and Britain invaded Iraq primarily for its oil,” wrote political reporter and Iraq expert Patrick Cockburn in The Independent. “But would they have gone to war if Iraq had been producing cabbages? Probably not.”

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

Posted on

Is Natural Gas All It’s Cracked Up to Be?

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Natural gas has a reputation as the least environmentally damaging fossil fuel, but a new study from Cornell University paints a slightly different picture. Study leader Robert Howarth told the BBC that, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, gas from shale rocks—undergoing a boom in production in the U.S.—is “quite likely as bad [as] or worse than coal.”

Why? Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a far more powerful—albeit shorter-lived—greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and shale gas production is leaky. For each watt of energy released, the emissions from producing shale gas would cause about 20 percent more warming than the emissions from coal over a 20-year period. This is about the same amount of warming as coal over a 100-year period. 

The study received criticism from a variety of groups, including the gas industry and the industry group Energy In Depth. Even The Clean Air Task Force argued it was flawed in several ways.

Meanwhile, shale gas is being hailed as a savior by many, with Time magazine proclaiming on its cover, “This rock could power the world,” and President Obama talking up shale gas production in a recent energy speech, saying “the potential for natural gas is enormous.”

But as the Time magazine article points out, shale gas has also won many detractors. Getting it out of the ground requires a technique known as hydrofracking—fracturing the shale rock by pumping millions of gallons of high-pressure, chemical-laden water into each well. Some fear this fluid is contaminating their drinking water—either underground, or when it is stored in pools on the surface. There is little reason to think fracking is inherently unsafe, argued Michael Levi with the Council on Foreign Relations, but a new study launched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could help sort out the evidence.

Regardless of the environmental impact, shale gas production could continue growing, according to a report commissioned by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. EIA estimates that there are “vast” quantities of technically recoverable shale gas in 32 countries (besides the U.S.), which amount to nearly 5,800 trillion cubic feet, or the equivalent of 1 trillion barrels of oil—a volume roughly on par with official estimates of proven oil reserves.

Some news articles put these resources in terms of current consumption—with Obama saying U.S. holds “perhaps a century’s worth” of shale gas.

Move Over Hybrids, Electric Vehicles

Many are talking about big boosts in natural gas consumption, including oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who hailed natural gas as “the only resource we have in America that can replace foreign oil.” Plans to replace oil for fueling fleets of trucks may get a boost from the NAT GAS Act, recently introduced in the Senate.

Chrysler this week announced it will start selling natural-gas vehicles in the U.S. by 2017. But Honda may beat them to it. 

But is there enough of this resource? In areas with abundant shale gas, power plants are using it as a replacement for coal, reports the Centre Daily Times from the shale gas heartland of Pennsylvania. If these plans for increased natural gas consumption pan out, however, the remaining resources could be used up considerably faster than many estimates suggest.

A Little Competition

Meanwhile, efforts to boost domestic energy production may bring another potentially environmentally damaging practice to the United States, since a mining company has qualified for a permit to open the country’s first tar sands mine in Utah.

As one of the Bush administration’s parting shots in 2008, it loosened the rules on development of oil shales—which have to be heated underground to break them down and yield oil—but the Department of the Interior has now said it is ready to launch a new evaluation of the regulations. Europe, on the other hand, is taking a much dimmer view of these unconventional fossil fuels, with the European Union mulling a ban on importing oil made from tar sands, and France considering banning shale gas wells.

Climate Talks Aim at Impossible Goal

The latest round of UN climate talks wrapped up in Bangkok, with no major breakthroughs. The World Wildlife Fund said there was “little to show for the weeklong session,” although countries did agree to a roadmap for moving forward. Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, chair of the Africa Group, told Reuters: “Thank god we came up with an agenda. It’s a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?”

China has earned new clout in climate negotiations, IPS news reports, as a result of its new five-year plan for the country. The plan is still under development, but draft versions set out large boosts for clean energy. But even with such relatively ambitious goals, it is nearly impossible to reach the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial temperature.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress hashed out deals on spending, with clean energy and efficiency research relatively unscathed. However, a proposal was killed that would have added the Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Like a Fish Needs a Llama

In other news, a few headlines made it hard to sort fact from fiction this week. One (apparently true) news story reported that, in the U.K., fish were transported by llama to new locales, to help them cope with climate change. And the Associated Press reported that energy giant General Electric decided to return its $3.2 billion tax refund to the U.S. Treasury. (That was a hoax, it turned out, perpetrated by the activist group The Yes Men.)

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

Posted on

The Clean and Dirty of Obama’s Energy Plan

The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University

Following Obama’s energy speech a week ago, which set out a goal to cut U.S. oil imports by one-third within a decade, the administration unveiled more projects to bolster energy production—both clean and dirty. This included $112 million for solar power, $26 million for advanced hydropower, and lease sales for new coal mines and deepwater oil exploration. Global private investment in clean energy is also on the rise. This is according to a new report from the Cleantech Group, which indicated it reached $2.5 billion for the first quarter of this year, a 50 percent jump compared with the quarter before.

However, efforts to foster renewable energy have a long way to go, said the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its new “Clean Energy Progress Report.” Annual government subsidies for renewables amount to $57 billion, compared with $312 for fossil fuels, according to the IEA’s tally. “More aggressive clean energy policies are required,” the report argued, “including the removal of fossil fuel subsidies and implementation of transparent, predictable and adaptive incentives for cleaner, more efficient energy options.”

Meanwhile, President Obama promised to veto a bill that would handcuff the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and prevent it from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Several Republicans tried another tack, proposing amendments to another bill that would have the same effect—but all four amendments failed to pass the Senate.

Could we be Headed for a Double-dip Recession?

A new poll says Americans have become far more concerned about gasoline prices in the past several months than Iraq, Afghanistan, immigration, terrorism and taxes. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said there’s nothing they can do to keep oil below $120 a barrel, and gas prices will continue to rise, according to a Moody’s forecast, while Algeria’s former energy minister said at an oil summit that turmoil in Arab countries will have dramatic effects on energy markets for years to come.

If the turmoil in the region spreads to Saudi Arabia, the country’s oil minister warned, the price of oil could soar. “If something happens in Saudi Arabia it will go to $200 to $300 [per barrel],” the minister, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, told Reuters. “I don’t expect this for the time being, but who would have expected Tunisia?”

Today’s high oil prices are already hampering global economic growth, an IEA official said. In the U.S. as well, high gasoline prices are taking their toll on the U.S. economy, and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues the U.S. is heading for a double-dip recession.

Even without a double-dip, governments’ belt-tightening measures have already eaten into green energy subsidies in Washington, D.C., as well as in Spain and France.

Fish Turning Up Radioactive

The fight continued to control the nuclear reactors in Japan, which are still facing the possibility of meltdowns. Authorities intentionally released 11,500 tons of radioactive water into the ocean before some uncontrolled leaks were sealed with a mix of  sawdust, newspaper,  concrete, and liquid glass. Despite these ongoing troubles, nuclear remains safer than many other energy sources, especially coal, according to an analysis of Europe’s energy sector and its effect on health.

Since the accident, U.K. environmental writer George Monbiot has been widely cited for his argument that Fukushima should actually make us more confident in nuclear power. This week he has stuck to his guns while sparring with Helen Caldicott, a Nobel Prize-winning anti-nuclear activist. Others have had their trust shaken,, however, including the European Union’s energy commissioner, who told Der Spiegel, “Fukushima has made me start to doubt” nuclear power.

The Japanese government is screening its fish, and finding some are highly radioactive—and halfway around the world from Japan, one New York restaurant has taken radiation scanning into its own hands, buying scanners to test incoming fish. Such fears are misplaced, argues risk expert David Ropeik—and fear itself may take a bigger toll on people’s health than radiation from the leaking plants.

Stern Rebuke

The latest round of United Nations climate talks, held in Bangkok, Thailand, got off to a rocky start. As the talks opened, U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, Todd Stern, was at an energy conference in New York, where he called for an agreement for developed and developing countries alike, without a “firewall” between them. But at the same time, he called a binding international agreement “unrealistic” and “not doable.” Rather than international agreements, Stern said, “it is the national plans of countries, written into law and regulations, that count and that bind.”

Developed and developing countries have set goals for cutting their emissions over the coming decades—but these don’t go far enough to avoid dangerous climate change, said Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres at the Bangkok meeting.

Didn’t See That Coming

After “Climategate” in late 2009, many climate skeptics launched studies independent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that took a closer look at the temperature record. Richard Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is leading one such effort, which has received a large part of its funding from Koch Industries, known for fighting hard against emissions controls and accused by Greenpeace of funding a “climate denial machine.”

When Muller presented the initial results to a congressional hearing, “Republicans expected Muller to challenge the accepted wisdom,” according to Science. But he told the hearing, “we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.”

The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.