Does 'Powering Forward' Advise Obama to Frack Our Way to a Clean Energy Economy?
In a new 203-page report, Powering Forward: Presidential and Executive Agency Actions to Drive Clean Energy in America, former Democratic Gov. of Colorado Bill Ritter has published his recommendations to President Obama for how to transform our nation into a “clean energy economy” and fight climate change.
Ritter, who heads the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, and his colleagues interviewed scores of business leaders, industry professionals and other energy “thought leaders” to come up with the recommendations that were splashed across the media today.
The report is chock full of extraordinary advice to Obama on many non-natural-gas topics related to clean energy (all too numerous to mention here), but unfortunately the major underpinning of the report is still using natural gas as a “transition fuel to a clean energy economy” (read page 87 of the reprot). The most illuminating graph in the whole report is on page 46 where it shows the clear and remarkable trend in the U.S. away from coal and towards natural gas for our energy supply.
Ritter, of course, knows this trend well—it was a key talking point for his 2006 successful run for Governor, and during his only term he championed a “fuel switching” policy which closed down Colorado coal plants and replaced them with natural gas.
A few years later, however, the oil and gas fracking boom across the Denver to Fort Collins Front Range of Colorado has lit off a firestorm of public controversy causing five cities (representing more than 400,000 citizens) to essentially ban fracking and putting Ritter’s policies (and his successor, Gov. John Hickenlooper’s) in the crosshairs of the public conflict.
In the report, Ritter sadly and unfortunately doubles-down on natural gas fracking:
- He calls for state-level regulation of drilling and fracking, as opposed to more federal oversight.
- He calls for more drilling and fracking on public owned lands, including vast stretches of Bureau of Land Management land in Colorado.
- He says there’s a “100-year supply” of natural gas in the U.S. at the same time ironically calling it a “transition fuel.”
- He calls for a large increase in the use of Natural Gas Vehicles, at the same time, ironically, saying we have an “oil addiction” that is accelerating climate change.
And on page 89, the report discusses the “Benefits” of natural gas fracking—a page of information that is simply not true. In fact in Colorado, our air is worse, our health is worse, our gas prices have not dropped dramatically, not enough new jobs have been created to ever justify the exploitation of health and environment, our communities are overrun with fracking impacts, climate change emissions are increasing and the problems with using/wasting/disposing of billions of gallons of toxic water are getting worse and worse.
And even more unfortunately, Ritter buys into the “rhetoric argument”—i.e., that the problem with fracking is that we environmentalists just don’t understand and aren’t educated.
On page 87, the report states:
A key recommendation that emerged from the CNEE stakeholder consultation on natural gas production—perhaps THE key recommendation—had less to do with the public policy and more to do with public discourse. It was the need to build greater trust and a sense of joint mission among government, the natural gas industry, the environmental community, other public-interest stakeholders and the general public.
Seventeen pages of the report are dedicated to “Robust and Responsible Natural Gas Production,” and many other pages and chapters point to how natural gas can help fight climate change. The report also—and perhaps hopefully—tries to point out that we need a “zero emissions policy” on methane leaks so as to address one of the problems with increased climate change emissions from natural gas.
But ultimately this report is underpinned by just more frackaholics from a growing and unsettling trend in frackademia. For god’s sakes, even British Petroleum has now stated that oil and gas fracking will increase climate change emissions, not decrease it. Further yet, the report repeats the now weary statements about how gas fracking will make the U.S. “energy independent,” when in fact the opposite is true.
What we’ve really found in Colorado is that we citizens are now nearly 100 percent dependent on global, predatory, fossil fuel corporations that are hell-bent on destroying our air, water and climate. In fact, during the November 2013 elections—in which I was involved, and in which four cities essentially banned fracking—I was stunned at how the oil and gas industry would pretty much say and do anything to anybody as well as spend nearly $1 million to try and ram cancer-causing fracking chemicals down our throats. Twenty thousand new wells are predicted to be drilled and fracked along the suburban areas of Colorado (adding to the 25,000 already here)—anyone who thinks that is a good idea is completely out of touch or being paid by the oil and gas industry.
Ritter’s report contains a trove of good information on topics unrelated to oil and gas fracking, and if he would have just left out the frackaholism, the report would have been an exceptional step forward. But here’s the real fact about clean energy that former Gov. Ritter should have said: Obama needs to pull our nation's head out of the sand and quit looking for fossil fuels underground, and instead raise our faces to the sky and that shining orb of real, clean energy—the sun.
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
Eleven peaceful activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise have taken to the water in inflatable boats with handheld banners to oppose the Statoil Songa Enabler oil rig, 275 km North off the Norwegian coast, in the Arctic Barents sea.
The banners say: "People Vs. Arctic Oil" and are directed at Statoil and the Norwegian government, which has opened a new, aggressive search for oil in the waters of the Barents Sea.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) paved the way Friday for the 600-mile, 42-inch fracked gas Atlantic Coast Pipeline to proceed when it issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). A joint project of utility giants Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would move fracked gas from West Virginia into Virginia and North Carolina.
In April, the Sierra Club submitted more than 500 pages of legal and technical comments on FERC's draft EIS, which were joined by more than 18,000 individual comments detailing opposition to the project. The pipeline has been met with widespread opposition, with more than 1,000 people participating in public hearings across the three affected states. The Sierra Club recently requested that FERC issue a new environmental review document analyzing information that came in after or late in, the public comment process.
By Jessica Corbett
"It's time Rex Tillerson step down or be removed," said Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International, following an announcement on Thursday that ExxonMobil will pay $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian officials while the now-secretary of state was the company's CEO.
"ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanction requirements," according to enforcement filing released by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which issued the penalty. Though the fine is reportedly the maximum penalty allowed, it's pittance to one of the world's most profitable and powerful corporations, which last year reported a profit of $7.8 billion.
New analysis from Amory B. Lovins debunks the notion that highly unprofitable, economically distressed nuclear plants should be further subsidized to meet financial, security, reliability and climate goals. The analysis, which will appear shortly in The Electricity Journal, shows that closing costly-to-run nuclear plants and reinvesting their saved operating costs in energy efficiency provides cheaper electricity, increases grid reliability and security, reduces more carbon, and preserves (not distorts) market integrity—all without subsidies.
By Christian Detisch and Seth Gladstone
In the wake of Senate Republicans' ever-deepening debacle over their flailing attempts to strip health insurance from 22 million people, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is desperate to do something—anything—to show that he can get legislation passed. To this end, he's bypassing the standard committee review process to push a complex 850+ page energy bill straight to the full Senate floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, this legislation, the Energy and Natural Resources Act of 2017, would be a disaster for public health and our climate.
A new law passed this week in South Miami will require all new homes built in the city to install solar panels. The measure, which was inspired by a proposal from a teenage climate activist, will go into effect in September.
The text of the ordinance details the climate impacts facing South Miami.
By Ben Jervey
Just last week, we fact-checked and debunked every line of The Dirty Secrets of Electric Cars, a video produced by Fueling U.S. Forward, a Koch-funded campaign to push fossil fuels. That video represents the group's first public pivot from fossil fuel boosterism to electric vehicle (EV) attacks. More electric vehicle experts are also picking the video apart.
One effort is this video highlighting many of the same falsehoods we wrote about, and which adds key context about some of the video footage. Like, for instance, the fact that the photo that Fueling U.S. Forward claims is a lithium, cobalt or cerium mining operation is actually a copper mine.
By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
A recent series of articles by a Washington Post reporter could have some consumers questioning the value of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) organic seal. But are a few bad eggs representative of an entire industry?
Consumers are all for cracking down on the fraudulent few who, with the help of Big Food, big retail chains and questionable certifiers give organics a bad name. But they also want stronger standards, and better enforcement—not a plan to weaken standards to accommodate "Factory Farm Organic."