Welcome to ArticleXI.com!
We are a group of environmental advocates united in providing a one-stop source for Virginia's environmental news. We each focus on different issues, but share the vision of a Commonwealth that preserves and protects its natural resources. Please join us!
Every president wants to leave a favorable legacy behind, one that scores of future generations of Americans will look at with nostalgia and admiration. But if President Obama wishes this for himself, signing off on the Keystone XL pipeline is the worst way of showing it. As proposed, the Keystone XL pipeline would extend all the way from Alberta, Canada to Texas. That's nearly 2,000 miles of pipeline!
But the large distance itself is not the core issue in the matter. What's primarily at issue is the possibility for a leak, a break, or another catastrophe involving any portion of the pipeline. Situated over some of America's most beloved and valued ecosystems and sources of drinking water, any such catastrophe could make BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico look like the best of all possible worlds.
It's understandable that President Obama wants to appease particular elements within the business community, the electorate, and numerous other constituent groups by giving the "all clear" to construct the Keystone XL pipeline. But when American's voted for change, many such as myself voted for a change in the way we deal with environmental and economic issues. When as many unknown variables enter the environmental equation as in the case of the Keystone XL pipeline, then a hold should be placed on whatever might cause human and environmental harm until the unknown variables are found and properly addressed.
As if any more evidence were needed to demonstrate the purely ideological basis upon which so many within the Republican Congress have based their policy decisions upon, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act is another ringing example. Eric Cantor (R-VA) voted against this act, an act that would have phased out the energy inefficient incandescent light bulb in favor of more efficient light bulbs like LED's. Thus, making the U.S. a less energy intensive country appears to be a low priority for many within the Republican controlled House.
The irony of the situation is that while most Republicans in the House call for "energy independence" and "energy security," they continually vote down what they apparently perceive to be "liberal" acts that would, in fact, promote more efficient energy use in the U.S. Even in this toxic political environment, what is best for the country shouldn't be a matter of where the ideas come from. But the Republican Party, in both houses of Congress, has epitomized the idea of irresponsible governance.
Not only has this morose party attacked more efficient energy use, they have attacked one of the few agencies whose mission is to protect environmental and human health, the EPA. The Republicans in Congress claim that the EPA is simply attempting to increase its power, totally ignoring the facts on the ground. What the Republican Party is really saying is that their friends and campaign contributors in Big Business feel ill at ease in complying with environmentally friendly business practices. God forbid if big businesses have to also focus on protecting the ecosystems and human populations that surround them!
This is, of course, where we are at right now, a battle between big business and environmental stewardship. What is often lost in the raging debates is that environmental health is also part and parcel with human health. If the former is sick, the latter will no doubt be as well. The Republican Party is in effect destroying human health with their assault on environmental protection.
After the nuclear-reactor incidents in Japan, there were individuals in the U.S. audacious enough to scoff at warnings from anti-nuclear advocates that nuclear energy poses risks that have not been properly controlled and that probably cannot be properly controlled with current technology. Some advocates of nuclear energy attempt to point out that newer technologies in nuclear energy will solve many of the problems that anti-nuclear advocates deride. But new nuclear technologies still do not address the problems posed by older nuclear power plants and their reactors. These same reactors have seen an increase in radioactive leaks over the past few years.
The last fact is an important one because it underscores the stratified nature of information that has usually entered the debate around nuclear energy. That is, many of the most horrific facts about nuclear energy don't usually get entered into the public debate surrounding nuclear energy because doing so would probably scare a lot of Americans or induce them to change their minds about the perceived advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. For instance, if I told you that every nuclear reactor in the U.S. has had a radioactive leak at some point in its history, would you still favor nuclear energy? Or how about the fact that in 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified before Congress that there was a 45% chance that a "severe nuclear accident" would occur in the next 20 years. The fact that it hasn't, then, is something close to a miracle.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, although it's looking more and more like it has become one. The Republican Party, for the most part, seems willing to brush the risk aside to embrace a nuclear future for the U.S. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has largely stuck to a more precautionary position, not necessarily deriding nuclear power but also not advocating it without relatively strict limitations. Of course, these strict limitations look good on paper but are apparently rarely ever enforced with such stringency. So here's another reason to finally kick nuclear energy to the curb: the supposedly rigid regime of regulation ensured by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has come under fire for not ensuring that its own regulations are being carried out. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that this will change substantially anytime in the near future.
So-called experts will mostly claim that nuclear energy production is safe, that redundancy after redundancy has been built into nuclear power plants in the U.S. to reduce the catastrophic risks that they pose. But after the incident at Fukushima in Japan, how can we be so sure that these redundancies will stand up to unforeseen natural or man-made disasters? Or do we think ourselves so wise as to believe that our engineers in the U.S. have taken all possible catastrophic scenarios into account concerning nuclear reactors? I think it would be wise to remain humble.
Discussions over nuclear policy usually tend to leave out the elephant in the room: nuclear waste. At present, there is no repository in the U.S. for waste, nor is there one even on the docket. A clear question arises then: how responsible is it to continue accumulating thousands of tons of nuclear waste without a clear and feasible solution to the repository dilemma? Consequently, how responsible is it to continue relying on nuclear energy for nearly 20% of the U.S.'s energy production? What sources of energy production are being obscured by a focus on nuclear energy?
But of course, the issue of the safety of nuclear reactors and power plants is beside the point. The question still remains: what we are going to do with the waste that is manufactured with each kilowatt-hour of energy generation? No local, state, or national politician seems willing to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole because there is such little consensus surrounding the issue and so much outrage at the idea of putting a nuclear waste repository "in my backyard." The outrage goes beyond the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) idea as well.
There is no guarantee, regardless of expert assurances, that stored nuclear waste will remain benign for thousands of years to come. There's no guarantee that stored waste will even be harmless for a generation or two. There are no guarantees, period. This area is uncharted in human history and if history means anything anymore, we should be aware that new fields of practical application come with their mistakes. What would be the potential costs of a nuclear mistake?
If you're skeptical, you're not alone. I don't recall many "experts" ever predicting a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl occurring. It will be argued, though, that U.S. nuclear reactors were and are much more sophisticated (i.e. safe) than those at Chernobyl and that we have learned the lessons of Three Mile Island. Japan also thought they had learned lessons from these incidents too, and they were wrong and we have yet to discern the full extent of the consequences. Given the alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, why is there even serious debate surrounding our future reliance on nuclear energy?
The answer is clear even though the politics more often than not obscures the commonsense solutions. Americans shouldn't have to concern themselves with 30 foot protective walls to prevent a major loss of human life or economic welfare. Americans shouldn't have to place their energy dependence on a source of energy that could, at least in theory, literally be used to annihilate the planet. With safer and cheaper renewable sources of energy available, it is insane to continue down the path of nuclear energy.
While human beings have harnessed the power of nuclear energy, we apparently haven't consistently harnessed the power of sound policy or common sense. We tried nuclear energy and we still have more questions than answers, more concerns than relief, and more disparate sources of energy available for the market than ever before. Why continue to play Russian roulette when there are safer games to play with greater rewards? Why not actually begin to focus our time and energy on renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass? Let's not wait for a U.S. Fukushima to occur before we start questioning the wisdom of pursuing nuclear energy.
What is wind power? How effective has it been as an energy source? For roughly 5,500 years, human beings have harnessed wind, a highly dynamic, unfailingly pervasive aspect of nature for use as a viable source of energy. Wind power is the energy outlet that pushed the first explorers to the new world, powered the agricultural spread of South Asia in as early as 7th century AD, and the highly sustainable, renewable source of power satisfying the energy needs of the world today. It's a veritable no brainer that such a clean source of energy, which yields no harmful emissions, be brought to Virginia, a state still struggling to overcome the 20th century fossil fuel mindset.
Wind energy is one of the fastest growing energy sources in the globe, the world's total wind power capacity doubling roughly every three years. In fact, between the years 2000 and 2006, total wind power capacity more than quadrupled, with Europe at the helm, accounting for just under 50% of the world's total wind energy usage. China, too, has shown a national consensus for developing renewable energy outlets to sustain their rapidly growing country, and in 2010 accounted for more than half of the global market for wind turbines. So where is America, the leader of the free world, the nation which accounts for roughly 20% of the world's CO2 emissions, in all of this?
In a recent announcement, the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) will be holding public hearings in 2011 on a number of rate requests for electric utilities.
On May 25, public hearings on Appalachian Power's most recent rate requests will be held in Abingdon and May 26 in Rocky Mount. An additional four hearings will be scheduled in August, September, and October in Richmond.
The Norton City Council Chambers is the scheduled meeting place on May 25 for a public hearing on a rate increase request by Kentucky Utilities. Kentucky Utilities also does business in Virginia. A public hearing will then be conducted on September 13 by the SCC on the rate increase request in Richmond.
While it is arguable whether electric utility rate increases are justified in Virginia, what is not arguable is the need to require those who use more energy to pay more.
The Sierra Club of Virginia proposed legislation to tie utility rates to amount of usage in the General Assembly this session. The legislation would have set forward a tiered structure in which those who use less pay less with costs per kilowatt hour rising as usage rises. Unfortunately, the bill was unceremoniously defeated by special interests and their political allies without as much as a vote in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee.
Opponents of the inclining block rate legislation claimed that the bill would have raised rates on the poor who live in inefficient housing. These claims are dubious at best however, as they do not match with energy usage trends nationwide. When we look at national trends we see a direct correlation between income, house size and energy consumption.
It stands to reason that those who use more energy should not be paying more as well. It is largely these same individuals who preach the gospel of the free market who turn their back on such principles when it benefits their bank accounts.
So please, by all means, raise the rates of energy in Virginia, just make sure you bill the wealthy in proportion to their energy usage. That way, the middle and working classes will finally be paying for their actual energy usage and not that of the wealthy as well.
The Sierra Club is often times asked why we get involved with issues involving labor unions. Many elected officials think that we make odd bedfellows, or simply don't believe there is a connection between the environment and workers.
One such case occurred with legislation in the Virginia General Assembly this session that dealt with regulation of the telecomm industry. The legislation, patroned by Delegate Tim Hugo (R) and Senator Dick Saslaw (D), was packaged as allowing telecomm companies to more easily use the innovations of the 21st Century.
The Sierra Club was concerned about the legislation because it makes it easier for companies like Verizon or AT&T to avoid running a hard wire into homes and businesses. The hard wire allows faster internet speeds, and is more reliable than wireless technologies in the more rural parts of the Commonwealth.
In the heated debate over offshore drilling, policymakers have only addressed "how much": how much gas and oil, how much tax revenue, and how many new jobs they think it would create. Yet, from the standpoint of healthy oceans, they've largely ignored the coastal environment and economies that would be subjected to potential harm from new offshore drilling such as off Virginia's coast.
Sometimes as an aside to their calls to "drill, baby, drill" comes the condition that drilling be done in an "environmentally safe manner." But what does that mean?
Lost in the debate is the realization that drilling has not occurred off our Atlantic coast for almost 30 years, and thus information on the possible effects of Atlantic drilling "is 30 years out of date," as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar points out.
Revealed at a Department of Interior workshop in Williamsburg in December 2008, large data gaps exist when it comes to endangered and protected species, fish and fisheries, the benthos and biology of the ocean floor, the ecosystems found in Virginia's offshore ocean canyons and coral reefs, as well as physical and geological oceanography.
In the interest of thorough environmental study, Salazar is rightly resistant to the rush to drill that is currently sweeping Virginia. For not only are there huge gaps in the scientific information needed to evaluate the impact of drilling off Virginia's coast, but Virginia's offshore zone is a small microcosm in a much larger coastal and oceanic ecosystem.
Rather than singling out a small area off a single state for an environmental study, the Atlantic coast as a whole needs to be studied. Tidal flows, ocean currents and winds often carry oil spills far from their source. Popular beaches, protected wetlands, sensitive marine habitats, and commercial and sports fishing all up and down the East Coast could be threatened by a large spill in Virginia's offshore zone.
Offshore oil and gas platforms continue to experience catastrophic failures despite the technological advances touted by drilling advocates. The recent blowout on the barely 2-year-old oil platform off the coast of Australia spilled an estimated 6-9 million gallons of oil during the 10 weeks it took to cap the well. Growing to almost the footprint size of New Jersey and observable from space, the spill has now contaminated Indonesian waters with its 5,800-square-mile spread.
It is disturbing that in their rush to drill, oil and gas drilling advocates in Virginia would oppose prudent studies on the impact of drilling on our precious Chesapeake Bay, our sensitive coastal wetlands, and our highly lucrative tourism and fishing industries that are completely dependent on clean beaches and healthy ocean waters.
Offshore drilling advocates cannot have it both ways. If they are being honest when they call for drilling to be done in an environmentally safe manner, then they should endorse Salazar's insistence on thorough studies of the environmental impact of drilling. If, instead, they oppose those studies in their rush to drill, then it is clear that they have failed to appreciate the bounty we have in coastal Virginia and how much we stand to lose if oil drilling were to occur irresponsibly.
"The fact is, these things happen", said Louisiana's Sen. Mary Landrieu, amazingly trying to dismiss the overwhelming risks associated with offshore drilling. Standing in front of a large poster of the flaming Australian oil platform at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, she even went as far as to accuse drilling opponents of lying and scare-mongering!
"All we did was testify about real things that have really happened, to make the point that despite advances in technology, mistakes are still made and accidents still happen - and with offshore oil production, the consequences still can be severe", writes Sky Truth's John Amos who was invited to testify on several significant oil spill incidents they've investigated over the past few years.
These investigations include "the recent Montara platform blowout and spill in the Timor Sea off Western Australia; this summer's spill in the Gulf of Mexico from the Eugene Island Pipeline operated by Shell; and the spills from hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and Ike in 2008, that exposed the Achilles heel of offshore production: the vulnerability and severe spill risk posed by the coastal infrastructure - especially pipelines and storage facilities - that is necessary to support offshore drilling."
Sky Truth was also commissioned to produce the image depicting the Australian oil spill off Virginia's coast. Click here to view image.
As an LTE in today's Virginian-Pilot points out (not online yet - see below the fold), politicians hinge their support of offshore drilling on its capacities to be done in an environmentally safe manner. The Australian spill especially shoots that pro-drilling argument to hell. The truth hurts and thus the knee-jerk reaction of people like Sen. Landrieu saying basically "shit happens".
Why in the world do we want shit to happen off our Virginia coasts?
Yesterday, on day #46 of the devastating oil spill that continues to dump oil into Australian seas, the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter released images of that spill plotted off Virginia's coast.
The images were commissioned from SkyTruth who used NASA and other government generated satellite images to depict the Australian oil spill that as of September 3 has grown to almost 9,900 square miles - larger than the square mile size of Vermont. The simple overlay of the Australian spill originating at a hypothetical well in the Lease Area 220 shows an oil spill of this size reaching Virginia Beach, Virginia's Eastern Shore and the northern Outer Banks.
"Supporters of offshore drilling have been saying there is no risk of a spill in Virginia waters with modern drilling technology. What is happening in Australia right now with a new rig built in 2007 proves that claim wrong," added Besa. "Plotted off Virginia's coast, the Australian oil spill should give Virginia great pause" said Glen Besa, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter Director. "All it takes is one spill to virtually shutdown Virginia's coastal economy, both tourism and fisheries, for years. Oil is still disrupting the natural environment in Prince William Sound 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill."
The drilling rig involved in this disastrous offshore blowout was built in 2007. The oil platform used was constructed in 2008. These are the same rigs that the oil industry is suggesting for use off Virginia's shores.
The scale and duration of this huge spill should be an ongoing lesson to which we in Virginia pay close attention. Even new drilling technology is not safe, in spite of the oil industry's claims. The risk of spills still exists and even just one spill would levy disastrous impacts on our Virginia coastal economies and environment.
Worries about the oil spill off Australia's north west coast are now being worsened by fears about the chemicals being used to control it. The spill at the West Atlas drill rig in the Timor Sea started more than three weeks ago, and no-one believes it will take less than three more weeks to plug the oil. The slick is now so big it can be seen from space, and a light sheen has crept within ten kilometres of Ashmore Reef. Fishermen say a fifth of their waters have been polluted by the oil and they're worried that fish could be poisoned.
The above graphic produced by SkyTruth illustrates a "what if" that blowout occurred off the coast of Florida. Granted, Florida currents are different than Australia currents. This graphic is provided only to give you a sense of the size of this spill. The purple blob which depicts the size of the Australian oil spill and superimposed on the Florida coast was taken from NASA satellite images dating back to Aug. 30. Satellite images of the Timor Sea taken on Sept. 3 reveals the area of slicks and sheen more than doubled in size in just 4 days, from 2,500 sq miles on Aug. 30 to 5,800 sq miles on Sept. 3. That's larger than the state of Connecticut at 5,544 square miles.
Dramatic remote-sensing photographs provided by NASA and other federal agencies are available to view online at SkyTruth.
Why, Virginia, why??? Why would we even remotely consider drilling off our shores? So much risk while so little return.
As the oil rig blowout near Western Australia enters its 19th day of uncontrolled release of oil into the sea, the extent of the spill is now the size of the State of Connecticut, at approximately 5,800 square miles and growing.
A NASA satellite image of the Timor Sea taken on September 3 reveals the area of slicks and sheen more than doubled in size in just 4 days, from 2,500 sq miles on Aug. 30 to 5,800 sq miles on Sept. 3. Dramatic remote-sensing photographs provided by NASA and other federal agencies are available to view online at http://blog.skytruth.org/.
The Australian government also announced yesterday that it has launched a major investigation into the cause of the blowout and resulting spill.
The West Atlas drilling rig involved in this offshore blowout was built in 2007. The Montara oil platform was constructed in 2008.
Controlling the flow of oil from this rig blowout is expected to take at least seven weeks. Officials estimate that until the spill can be brought under control, between 300 and 400 barrels of oil continue to spill into the ocean each day.
"This so-called modern offshore drilling operation has allowed a tragic oil spill in Australian waters. Even industry's best available technology cannot stop it for weeks," said Richard Charter, Co-Chair of the National Outer Continental Shelf Coalition.
"Offshore drilling is risky business. This spill shows what could happen if we open more of America's coasts to drilling," said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope.
Last year, the nearly 30-year-old congressional and Presidential ban on offshore drilling in the lower 48 states was lifted. In November 2008, the Bush Administration designated a 2.9 million acre area off the Virginia coast (Lease Sale 220) for oil and gas drilling.
"The scale and duration of this huge spill should be an ongoing lesson to which we in Virginia pay close attention," said Eileen Levandoski, Hampton Roads organizer with the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. "For despite new drilling technology, the risk of spills still exists and even just one spill would levy disastrous impacts on our Virginia coastal economies and environment."
"The whole world is watching," said Charter. "We face votes very soon in the Florida and California legislatures, as well as the U.S. Senate, that will determine whether or not this same type of drilling rig will be allowed to operate in long-protected coastal waters here."
A new Washington Post/ABC poll shows broad support (57%) for the Obama Administrations efforts at energy reform.
In addition to the findings in the chart above, some other key findings:
Around 75% support energy conservation requirements for consumers and businesses
91% support development of new wind and solar projects
80% support requirements for greater fuel efficiency
Efficiency and renewable energy have the potential to transform our economy and Americans get it. We want to be able to take advantage of energy efficiency to save money and help the environment at the same time. We also need and want leadership from our leaders in Washington and candidates running in Virginia.
Visit ConservationMajorityVA.org to learn how to get push this positive vision for Virginia's clean energy future during the 2009 Election season.
Here's a painfully funny video from the Alaska Wilderness League to support a petition drive to President Obama to protect America's Arctic.
"Isn't it finally time to protect the treasures of America's Arctic from destructive drilling? Last year, there were more than 90 oil spills per day in the United States.
All of America's polar bears live in the Arctic Ocean, migratory caribou still roam free in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and birds from around the globe congregate at Teshekpuk Lake in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. These are natural treasures that belong to us all. We have a duty to protect them."
User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club and/or the League of Conservation Voters. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
ArticleXI.com is paid for and authorized by
Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC, 530 East Main Street, Ste. 410, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 225-1902 and
Sierra Club VA PAC, 422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 225-9113.
"The fact is, these things happen", said Louisiana's Sen. Mary Landrieu, amazingly trying to dismiss the overwhelming risks associated with offshore drilling. Standing in front of a large poster of the flaming Australian oil platform at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, she even went as far as to accuse drilling opponents of lying and scare-mongering!
