Although natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, it is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Skitterphoto / PIxabay
By Emily Grubert
Natural gas is a versatile fossil fuel that accounts for about a third of U.S. energy use. Although it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, natural gas is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Reducing emissions from the natural gas system is especially challenging because natural gas is used roughly equally for electricity, heating, and industrial applications.
<p>There's an emerging argument that maybe there could be a direct substitute for fossil natural gas in the form of renewable natural gas (RNG) – a renewable fuel designed to be nearly indistinguishable from fossil natural gas. RNG could be made from biomass or from captured carbon dioxide and electricity.</p><p>Based on what's known about these systems, however, I believe climate benefits might not be as large as advocates claim. This matters because RNG isn't widely used yet, and decisions about whether to invest in it are being made now, in places like <a href="https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/blog/influx-of-california-rng-fuels-local-economy-protects-climate" target="_blank">California</a>, <a href="https://www.oregon.gov/energy/Get-Involved/Pages/RNG-Advisory-Committee.aspx" target="_blank">Oregon</a>, <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/15172/inslee-signs-bill-to-promote-rng-in-state-of-washington" target="_blank">Washington</a>, <a href="https://energynews.us/2019/12/03/midwest/michigan-utilities-see-role-for-renewable-natural-gas-but-cost-barrier-remains/" target="_blank">Michigan</a>, <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">Georgia</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/rng-interconnect-guideline-new-york" target="_blank">New York</a>.</p><p>As someone who studies <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3RI02dcAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">sustainability</a>, I research how decisions made now might influence the environment and society in the future. I'm particularly interested in how energy systems contribute to climate change.</p><p>Right now, energy is responsible for most of the pollution worldwide that <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/" target="_blank">causes climate change</a>. Since energy infrastructure, like power plants and pipelines, <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">lasts a long time</a>, it's important to consider the climate change emissions that society <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1364-3" target="_blank">is committing to</a> with new investments in these systems. At the moment, renewable natural gas is more a proposal than reality, which makes this a great time to ask: What would investing in RNG mean for climate change?</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6bd9fda1316965a9ba24dd60fd9cc34d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3KaMnkmf0tc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
What RNG Is and Why it Matters
<p>Most equipment that uses energy can only use a single kind of fuel, but the fuel might come from different resources. For example, you can't charge your computer with gasoline, but it can run on electricity generated from coal, natural gas or solar power.</p><p>Natural gas is almost pure methane, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/" target="_blank">currently sourced</a> from raw, fossil natural gas produced from <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php" target="_blank">deposits deep underground</a>. But methane could come from renewable resources, too.</p><p><span></span>Two main methane sources could be used to make RNG. First is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" target="_blank">biogenic methane</a>, produced by bacteria that digest organic materials in manure, landfills and wastewater. Wastewater treatment plants, landfills and dairy farms have captured and used biogenic methane as an energy resource for <a href="http://emilygrubert.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/eia_860_2017_map.html" target="_blank">decades</a>, in a form usually called <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php" target="_blank">biogas</a>.</p><p>Some biogenic methane is generated naturally when organic materials break down without oxygen. Burning it for energy can be beneficial for the climate if doing so prevents methane from escaping to the atmosphere.</p><p>In theory, there's enough of this climate-friendly methane available to replace <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">about 1% of the energy</a> that the current natural gas system provides. The largest share is found at landfills.</p><p>The other source for RNG doesn't exist in practice yet, but could theoretically be a much larger resource than biogenic methane. Often called <a href="https://www.powermag.com/why-power-to-gas-may-flourish-in-a-renewables-heavy-world/" target="_blank">power-to-gas</a>, this methane would be intentionally manufactured from carbon dioxide and hydrogen using electricity. If all the inputs are climate-neutral – meaning, for example, that the electricity used to create the RNG is generated from resources without greenhouse gas emissions – then the combusted RNG would also be climate-neutral.</p><p>So far, RNG of either type isn't widely available. Much of the current conversation focuses on whether and how to make it available. For example, <a href="https://www.sempra.com/socalgas-takes-next-step-toward-offering-renewable-natural-gas" target="_blank">SoCalGas in California</a>, <a href="https://energynews.us/2019/01/30/midwest/minnesota-utility-wants-to-offer-customers-renewable-natural-gas-option/" target="_blank">CenterPoint Energy in Minnesota and Vermont Gas Systems in Vermont</a> either offer or have proposed offering RNG to consumers, in the same way that many utilities allow customers to opt in to renewable electricity.</p>
Renewable Isn’t Always Sustainable
<p>If RNG could be a renewable replacement for fossil natural gas, why not move ahead? Consumers have shown that they are <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/green-power.html" target="_blank">willing to buy renewable electricity</a>, so we might expect similar enthusiasm for RNG.</p><p>The key issue is that methane isn't just a fuel – it's also a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_overview.php" target="_blank">potent greenhouse gas</a> that contributes to climate change. Any methane that is manufactured intentionally, whether from biogenic or other sources, will contribute to climate change if it enters the atmosphere.</p><p>And <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204" target="_blank">releases</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.029" target="_blank">will happen</a>, from newly built production systems and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-methane-emissions-matter-to-climate-change-5-questions-answered-122684" target="_blank">existing, leaky transportation and user infrastructure</a>. For example, the moment you smell gas before the pilot light on a stove lights the ring? That's methane leakage, and it contributes to climate change.</p><p>To be clear, RNG is almost certainly better for the climate than fossil natural gas because byproducts of burning RNG won't contribute to climate change. But doing somewhat better than existing systems is no longer enough to respond to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2923" target="_blank">urgency</a> of climate change. The world's <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/" target="_blank">primary international body on climate change</a> suggests we need to decarbonize by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.</p>Scant Climate Benefits
<p><a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9335/meta" target="_blank">My recent research</a> suggests that for a system large enough to displace a lot of fossil natural gas, RNG is probably not as good for the climate as <a href="https://investor.southerncompany.com/information-for-investors/latest-news/latest-news-releases/press-release-details/2020/Southern-Company-Gas-grows-leadership-team-to-focus-on-climate-action-innovation-and-renewable-natural-gas-strategy/default.aspx" target="_blank">is publicly claimed</a>. Although RNG has lower climate impact than its fossil counterpart, likely high demand and methane leakage mean that it probably will contribute to climate change. In contrast, renewable sources such as wind and solar energy do not <a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/" target="_blank">emit climate pollution directly</a>.</p><p>What's more, creating a large RNG system would require building mostly new production infrastructure, since RNG comes from different sources than fossil natural gas. Such investments are both long-term commitments and opportunity costs. They would devote money, political will and infrastructure investments to RNG instead of alternatives that could achieve a zero greenhouse gas emission goal.</p><p>When climate change first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html" target="_blank">broke into the political conversation</a> in the late 1980s, investing in long-lived systems with low but non-zero greenhouse gas emissions was still compatible with aggressive climate goals. Now, zero greenhouse gas emissions is the target, and my research suggests that large deployments of RNG likely won't meet that goal.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Solar Employs More Workers Than Coal, Oil and Natural Gas ... ›
- The Truth About Natural Gas: A 'Green' Bridge to Hell - EcoWatch ›
- Why Natural Gas Is a Bridge Fuel to Nowhere - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
April 2020 was the first month ever that renewables generated more electricity than thermal coal in the United States every single day. Crady von Pawlak / Getty Images
By Fino Menezes
April 2020 was the first month ever that renewables generated more electricity than thermal coal in the United States every single day, while across the Atlantic, the United Kingdom's rapid decarbonization of its electricity grid has achieved another significant milestone – completing a whole month (30 days) without coal power for the first time in 138 years.
Renewables Surpass Coal in U.S. Power Generation Every Day in April
<p>April 2020 was the first month in U.S. history that renewables generated more electricity than coal on every day of the month. That's based on new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and compiled by the nonprofit <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewables-surpass-coal-in-u-s-power-generation-throughout-the-month-of-april-2020/" target="_blank">Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)</a>.</p><p>The daily consecutive run of renewables over coal began on March 25 and continued for 40 straight days through May 3. That breaks the previous record of just nine continuous days.</p><p>The strong output from utility-scale solar, wind, and hydropower is based on several factors, including low gas prices, warmer weather, new renewable capacity connecting to the grid late last year, and lower power demand because of the coronavirus.</p><p>IEEFA <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewables-surpass-coal-in-u-s-power-generation-throughout-the-month-of-april-2020/" target="_blank">reported</a>: "Coal's high cost has made it increasingly one of the last fuel choices for many utilities, a trend reflected by its declining market share for electric generation: just 15.3% in April, according to preliminary EIA figures.</p><p>"In January, coal's market share fell below 20% for the first time in many decades — and possibly for the first time in the entire history of the U.S. power industry — ending at 19.9%.</p><p>"EIA figures also show its share continued to erode, falling to 18.3% in February and 17.3% in March. As recently as 2008, coal's market share was above 50% in the months of January, February and March."</p><p>IEEFA had previously <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewable-generation-is-set-to-surpass-coal-in-2021/" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewable-generation-is-set-to-surpass-coal-in-2021/" target="_blank">forecasted that power generation from renewables</a> would likely surpass coal-fired generation in 2021, an important milestone in the energy transition that is well underway. But in the first quarter of 2020, renewable generation unexpectedly exceeded coal, and with this strong performance continuing in the second quarter, there is an increasing chance that the milestone could occur this year.</p>U.K. Goes a Month Without Coal Power for First Time for 138 Years
<p>The United Kingdom's rapid decarbonization of its electricity grid has achieved another significant milestone – completing a whole month (30 days) without coal power for the first time in 138 years, <a href="https://ieefa.org/u-k-electricity-goes-coal-free-for-a-month-a-first-in-138-years/" target="_blank">reported</a> The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) this week.</p><p>The milestone was reached on Sunday 10 May (U.K.) time and celebrated by National Grid ESO, the organization that runs the grid and is responsible for keeping the lights on nationwide. It was the first time this occurred since coal power was first used on the U.K. power system in January, 1882, at Holborn Viaduct.<br></p><p>Within a few years, there will be no coal generation at all – with the remaining plants shuttered, and one or two converted to gas by 2025. National Grid aims to be able to operate a fully zero emission grid when weather conditions allow from 2025, and is accelerating its adoption of new technologies and management systems that will allow it to side line gas power plants when possible.<br></p><p>Just a few days before the new month-long coal-free milestone, National Grid released its latest end of year planning report outlining the main achievements it has made in the long path to a fully decarbonized grid before 2050.</p><p>"We're really proud of our zero carbon targets," National Grid wrote in a blog a few days earlier. "In May 2019 there was a 2-week period where there was coal free operation of Great Britain's electricity system. This has quickly been beaten after the record breaking sunlight in April."</p><p>It noted that the carbon intensity of the electricity system has halved over the last five years, and is down 60 per cent when compared to 2013. "The recent <a href="https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/day-life-energy-forecasting-manager" target="_blank">low demand for energy</a> due to COVID-19 has dramatically reduced the use of fossil fuel based generation, and this has been supported by our optimized renewable generation," it says.</p><p>"And as supply changes, so to does demand, as renewables capacity and smart grid functionality increases further to enable the side-lining of gas power plants when possible."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Top 4 States for Wind Energy - EcoWatch ›
- Renewable Energy Jobs Surpass 10 Million for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- 7 Reasons Renewable Energy Will Soon Surpass Coal and Nuclear ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Smoke rises from an LG Polymers plant following a gas leak incident in Visakhapatnam, India on May 7, 2020. AFP via Getty Images
A major gas leak at a petrochemical plant in the eastern, industrial port city of Visakhapatnam, India has killed at least 11 people and sent hundreds to the hospital, according to the most recent figures from India Today.
<p>The leak occurred around 2:30 a.m. Thursday at the LG Polymers <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a> plant, when styrene leaked out from two 5,000 tonne (approximately 5,512 U.S. tons) tanks that had been left unattended due to India's coronavirus lockdown, police said, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/07/gas-leak-at-chemical-factory-in-india-kills-hospitalises-lg-polymers" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>.</p><p>"Because of the leakage of the said compound gas hundreds of people have inhaled it and either fell unconscious or having breathing issues," greater Visakhapatnam municipal corporation commissioner Srijana Gummalla said on Twitter.</p>
<div id="a974c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6cac5d018c1f54d14b0d766ed814cb1b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1258227992330792960" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Primary report is PVC gas (or Styrene) leaked from LG Polymers, Vepagunta near Gopalapatnam in Visakhapatnam at aro… https://t.co/o1GUxoNgSQ</div> — Srijana Gummalla (@Srijana Gummalla)<a href="https://twitter.com/GummallaSrijana/statuses/1258227992330792960">1588819904.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Television footage showed people lying in the streets unconscious and dead cows with white matter leaking from their noses, The Guardian reported.</p><p>Swarupa Rani, an assistant commissioner of police in Visakhapatnam, said she was called to the scene around 3:30 a.m.</p><p> "One could feel the gas in the air and it was not possible for any of us to stay there for more than a few minutes," she said. </p><p>Visakhapatnam city is on India's east coast between Kolkata and Chennai, in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Areas within nearly two miles of the plant were at risk, the municipal corporation said, according to <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-india-disaster/gas-leak-at-lg-polymers-plant-in-india-kills-six-over-120-hospitalised-idUKKBN22J07Q" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<div id="23384" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a119156ac8491c93af7190b07127351e"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1258241583893196803" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">CORE & VULNERABLE AREAS MAP OF PVC GAS LEAKAGE. REQUESTING CITIZENS TO USE WET MASKS OR WET CLOTH TO COVER YOUR NOS… https://t.co/K4xAko0Hk3</div> — Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) (@Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC))<a href="https://twitter.com/GVMC_OFFICIAL/statuses/1258241583893196803">1588823145.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The leak was especially dangerous because it occurred while people were still in bed.</p><p>"There are people who were sleeping," district hospitals coordinator B K Naik told <a href="https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/gas-leak-indian-chemical-plant-kills-least-6-doc-1r23sj2" target="_blank">AFP</a>. "We are working to get people to the hospital. They need oxygenation and fresh air."</p><p>Naik said at least 1,000 people were hospitalized, while Rani put the number at a lower 300 to 400, according to Reuters. A further 1,500 people were evacuated.</p><p>The plant's manager, South Korea-based LG Chem, said the leak was now contained.</p><p>"The gas leak situation is now under control and we are exploring all ways to provide speedy treatment for those who suffer from inhaling the leaked gas. We are investigating the extent of damage and exact cause of the leak and deaths," LG Chem said in a statement reported by India Today.</p>
<p>The plant makes products from polystyrene, a type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastic</a>. Those products are used for electric fan blades, cups and cutlery and makeup containers, according to the company website, as Reuters reported. Styrene, the raw material that makes polystyrene, burns easily and releases a toxic gas when it does.</p><p>"(The gas) was left there because of the lockdown. It led to a chemical reaction and heat was produced inside the tanks, and the gas leaked because of that," Rani told AFP.</p><p>However, LG Chem said that, while the plant had not been in operation, there was still maintenance staff on hand.</p><p>"While it's true that the factory wasn't operating as it was under lockdown, there were maintenance workers inside," a company spokesman told AFP in Seoul. "A worker on night shift discovered the leak and reported it."</p><p>However, environmentalists have long raised concerns about the safety of chemical plants in the area, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"The industrial safety culture in this state is very poor and the regulatory bodies are very lax,"EAS Sarma, a former Indian finance secretary who lives nearby, said.</p><p>The incident brought back memories of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/30th-anniversary-of-the-worlds-worst-industrial-disaster-1881982171.html" target="_self">Bhopal gas leak of 1984</a>, one of the worst industrial disasters of the twentieth century, the <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/vizag-gas-leak-an-eerie-reminder-of-bhopal-gas-tragedy/story-PTCBZv5Me1Y2crMHtVbeNN.html" target="_blank">Hindustan Times pointed out</a>.</p><p>In that tragedy, thousands of people died when 30 tonnes (approximately 33 U.S. tons) of methyl isocyanate gas were released from the Union Carbide pesticide plant. Groundwater was found to still be contaminated by the leak in 2015.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Gas Pipeline Rupture Injures 46, Forces 300 to Evacuate in ... ›
- Gas Explosion in Nigeria Leaves 15 Dead, More Than 50 Buildings ... ›
- Massive Fire at South Philadelphia Oil Refinery Injures Five ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky on August 21, 2019 in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
As calls for a People's Bailout in response to the coronavirus pandemic continue to grow across the United States, a new analysis warns that the country's Big Oil companies "stand to reap yet another billion dollar bailout" thanks to the Federal Reserve's plans to buy up to $750 billion in corporate debt.
The analysis (pdf), released Wednesday by the advocacy group Friends of the Earth (FOE), explains that this expected bailout for polluters relates to a controversial $500 billion corporate slush fund included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that Congress passed in March.
<p>According to FOE's report, <em>The Big Oil Money Pit</em>:</p><blockquote>Of that amount, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin enjoys direct control over a comparatively small $46 billion reserved for aviation and industries deemed essential to "national security." But the remaining $454 billion went to the Federal Reserve, which will use the money to implement emergency lending programs for corporations and municipalities. Secretary Mnuchin must approve these lending programs and wields considerable power over their design, but the money itself will move through the Fed.<br>After weeks of unprecedented human suffering and an ongoing failure to support frontline workers, the Fed announced on April 9, 2020 how it would spend the first $195 billion of the slush fund. A full $75 billion would go to buy corporate debt. But because the Fed can leverage money appropriated by Congress, the real size of this program is $750 billion. Considering that a majority of the money from the first stimulus [is] still unspent, there is plenty of room for this program to grow.<br></blockquote><p>FOE found that the fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Conoco "are together eligible for a maximum $19.4 billion in benefits, based on their credit ratings and outstanding long-term debt."</p>
<div id="0f3d4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ffa4587779be08a5a8dff623feb89e8b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1250456629532692481" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW ANALYSIS: Trump’s admin just announced a $750 billion corporate slush fund -- money that will enrich oil execs… https://t.co/9fz8NWZzDv</div> — Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/statuses/1250456629532692481">1586967067.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The Fed <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/03/24/blackrock-must-manage-climate-risk-it-takes-fed-debt-buyout-program" target="_blank">has hired</a> BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, to administer part of its debt-buying efforts related to the pandemic. "As BlackRock begins purchasing 'high yield' exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to bolster corporate debt markets," FOE warns, "energy companies (predominantly oil and gas) stand to benefit disproportionately as the largest single issuer of junk bonds, at 11% of the entire U.S. market."</p>
<p>Other key takeaways from the report include:</p><ul><li>There are 12 fracking-focused oil and gas companies that could potentially qualify for the new program. Together, they may be eligible for over $24.1 billion in potential benefits.</li><li>Major fracking company Continental Resources, whose debt was recently downgraded to below investment grade by S&P, is potentially eligible for as much as $1.5 billion under new, weaker standards announced by the Federal Reserve.</li></ul>
<p>Echoing climate campaigners' <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/03/we-need-peoples-bailout-not-polluters-bailout-climate-groups-move-preempt-big-oil" target="_blank">comments</a> after President Donald Trump met with fossil fuel executives at the White House earlier this month, FOE senior policy analyst Lukas Ross <a href="https://foe.org/news/new-report-big-oils-money-pit-to-reap-stimulus-billions/" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Wednesday that "oil company bailouts are simply throwing good money after bad."</p><p>"Congress and the Democrats must stop this endless stream of handouts to an industry that is exploiting a public health crisis for financial gain," Ross declared. "These potential payoffs to major campaign contributors are the least efficient way of re-starting the economy and will just serve to enrich oil executives."</p><p>"Oil companies are trying to punt the financial reckoning of their fracking debacle and Congress should not enable their addiction with public tax dollars," he added. "Instead of pumping money into an irresponsible industry that plays shell games with its debt, Congress should focus on providing direct support to workers and communities on the frontlines of coronavirus."</p><p>As the Trump administration has<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/19/amid-climate-crisis-and-raging-pandemic-trump-blasted-morally-bankrupt-multibillion" target="_blank"> tried</a> to spend billions of taxpayers dollars to "fill up" the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and major banks are <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/10/critics-decry-massive-step-wrong-direction-big-banks-move-buy-fracking-industry" target="_blank">reportedly preparing</a> to take over fossil fuel assets with CARES Act funding, climate action advocates have <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/03/we-need-peoples-bailout-not-polluters-bailout-climate-groups-move-preempt-big-oil" target="_blank">charged</a> that "we need a people's bailout, not a polluters' bailout!"</p><p>Hundreds of community leaders, lawmakers, and groups—including FOE—have joined the demand for Congress to pursue a <a href="https://thepeoplesbailout.org/" target="_blank">people's bailout</a> guided by five key principles:</p>
<div id="90a82" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d4dd414f6709a83588b90e27c5ce37cb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1250127963166826497" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The response to one existential crisis must not fuel another. Let's not perpetuate the status quo of fossil fuel pr… https://t.co/VJPOCAFuxd</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/1250127963166826497">1586888707.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The new FOE report includes some specific calls to action directed at Congress:</p><ul> <li>Prioritize direct aid to still neglected workers and communities on the frontlines of the crisis.</li><li>Engage in aggressive oversight to ensure BlackRock does not benefit unfairly from purchasing its own products or needlessly bolster fossil fuel assets.</li><li>Eliminate Secretary Mnuchin's authority to waive crucial protections banning companies receiving bailouts stock buybacks.</li><li>Make future stimulus aid conditional on new and binding protections for workers and the environment.</li><li>Make oil, gas, and coal companies ineligible for support from existing stimulus programs, unless it is conditioned on a phaseout of existing production and an iron-clad commitment to existing pension and environmental liabilities.</li></ul><p>"Much more work needs to be done, both to support workers and families in the face of COVID-19 and to prevent a runaway bailout of the fossil fuel industry," the report says. "Congress cannot afford to wait."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/15/amid-calls-peoples-bailout-feds-corporate-debt-buying-could-mean-billion-dollar-big" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Bails Out Oil Industry, Not U.S. Families, as Coronavirus ... ›
- Trump Blasted for 'Morally Bankrupt' Multibillion-Dollar Big Oil ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Crews battle the blazing remnants of the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 21, 2010 near New Orleans, Louisiana. U.S. Coast Guard / Getty Images
By Donald Boesch
Ten years ago, on April 20, 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, killing 11 crew members and starting the largest ocean oil spill in history. Over the next three months, between 4 million and 5 million barrels of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico.
<p>I was a member of the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf" target="_blank">oil spill commission</a> appointed by President Obama to investigate the causes of the disaster. Later, I served as a courtroom witness for the government on the effects of the spill. While scientists now know more about these effects, risks of deepwater blowouts remain, and the energy industry and government responders still have only very limited ability to control where the oil goes once it's released from the well.</p><p>The spill commission found that <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-OILCOMMISSION" target="_blank">multiple identifiable mistakes caused the blowout</a>. Our report cast doubt over how safety was addressed across the offshore oil industry and the government's ability to regulate it.</p><p>As the oil spill commission's report showed, drilling ever deeper into the Gulf involved risks for which neither industry nor government was adequately prepared. The industry had felt so sure that a blowout would not happen that it lacked the capacity to contain it. Neither BP nor the government could do much to control or clean up the spill.</p>
Safety improvements are threatened
<p>The presidential commission recommended numerous reforms to reduce the risks and environmental damages from offshore oil and gas development. The industry developed <a href="https://www.noia.org/offshore-energy/safety/response-containment-systems/" target="_blank">systems to contain blowouts</a> in deep water and has deployed them worldwide. Improvements in operational safety were made within companies and <a href="https://www.centerforoffshoresafety.org/" target="_blank">across the industry</a>.</p><p>The Department of the Interior acted quickly to reorganize its units. It created a <a href="https://www.bsee.gov/who-we-are/about-us" target="_blank">Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement</a> to avoid conflicts of interests with its leasing, development and revenue collection responsibilities. After four years in development, the bureau issued <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/29/2016-08921/oil-and-gas-and-sulfur-operations-in-the-outer-continental-shelf-blowout-preventer-systems-and-well" target="_blank">new well control rules</a> in 2016 governing drilling safety.</p><p>But despite progress on a number of fronts, Congress has not enacted legislation to improve safety or even raise energy companies' ridiculously low liability limits for oil spills – currently just <a href="https://www.boem.gov/newsroom/press-releases/boem-adjusts-limit-liability-oil-spills-offshore-facilities" target="_blank">US$134 million</a> for offshore facilities like the Deepwater Horizon. The Trump administration has <a href="https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/bsee-finalizes-improved-blowout-preventer-and-well-control-regulations" target="_blank">reversed or relaxed safety reforms</a>. It has loosened the safe pressure margins allowed in a well, dispensed with independent inspections of blowout protectors and removed requirements for continuous onshore monitoring of offshore drilling.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6213b6d12749022223a9d737e4f84404"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/esliY9Miej0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p>Some of these changes were <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/484837-political-appointees-urged-rollback-of-deepwater-horizon-inspired" target="_blank">ordered by political appointees</a> over the recommendations of the safety bureau's technical experts. While the bureau is charged with focusing singularly on <a href="https://www.bsee.gov/who-we-are/about-us" target="_blank">safety and the environment</a>, its director, <a href="https://www.bsee.gov/who-we-are/our-organization/leadership/director" target="_blank">Scott Angelle</a>, has been a <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/investing/offshore-oil-drilling-safety-trump-bsee/index.html" target="_blank">prominent proponent</a> of the administration's aggressive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-unleashing-american-energy-dominance/" target="_blank">"energy dominance"</a> strategy, ordering expanded oil production and elimination of costly regulations. Imagine the message this sends about priorities to people in government and industry who are responsible for ensuring safety.</p>
Where contamination lingers
<p>Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the deep Gulf of Mexico ecosystem was egregiously understudied in all respects, while a <a href="https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2019-2024/DPP/NP-Economic-Benefits.pdf" target="_blank">multi-billion-dollar industry</a> intruded into it. Now scientists know much more about what happens when large quantities of oil and gas are released in a seafloor blowout.</p><p>Scientists learned much about the effects of the spill through monitoring the blowout, assessing damages to natural resources and investigating the fate and effects of escaping oil. More has been spent on these studies and more results published than for any previous oil spill.</p><p>A substantial portion of oil released from the mile-deep well was entrained in a plume of droplets spreading out 3,000 feet below the Gulf's surface. Footprints of contamination and effects extended <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw8863" target="_blank">far beyond the area where oil slicks were observed</a>.</p>NASA | Satellites View Growing Gulf Oil Spill
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e0ae67b051718ba3863e543b577e9716"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mCWW5xt3Hc8?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Nearly all of the oil released has since degraded. Populations of most affected organisms have recovered. But contamination lingers in sediments in the deep Gulf, and in some marshes and beaches where oil came ashore. Populations of <a href="https://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/Chapter-4_Injury_to_Natural_Resources_508.pdf" target="_blank">long-lived animals the oil killed </a> might not recover for decades. These include sea turtles, bottlenose dolphins, seabirds and <a href="https://theconversation.com/deepwater-corals-thrive-at-the-bottom-of-the-ocean-but-cant-escape-human-impacts-104211" target="_blank">deepwater corals</a>.</p><p>And yet, as scientists synthesize results from this <a href="https://gulfresearchinitiative.org/" target="_blank">10-year research initiative</a>, very little practical advice is emerging about what can be done to respond more effectively to future blowouts from ever-deeper drilling in the Gulf.</p><p>Surely, we can more rapidly contain blowouts. The effectiveness of injecting chemical dispersants into the plume gushing from the well <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-12963-7_29" target="_blank">remains in debate</a>. How much oil do dispersants keep from reaching the surface, where it threatens those working to stanch the blowout, as well as birds, sea turtles and coastal ecosystems? But the research has not revealed more effective approaches in controlling released oil.</p>Safety first is the big lesson
<p>As I see it, the essential lesson from Deepwater Horizon is that industry and government should be putting their greatest energies into preventing operational accidents, blowouts and releases. Yet the Trump administration emphasizes <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-offshore-oil-drilling-plans-ignore-the-lessons-of-bp-deepwater-horizon-89570" target="_blank">increasing production and reducing regulations</a>. This undermines safety improvements made over the past 10 years.</p><p>Furthermore, the price of crude oil – already low because of high fracked oil production in the U.S. – has <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-oil-shock-of-2020-appears-to-be-here-and-the-pain-could-be-wide-and-deep-133293" target="_blank">declined drastically</a> since the beginning of 2020. Saudi and Russian oil had already glutted the market when the coronavirus pandemic reduced oil consumption.</p><p>
The federal government's March 2020 oil and gas lease sale for the Gulf of Mexico yielded the lowest response in four years –
<a href="https://www.oedigital.com/news/476766-u-s-offshore-oil-lease-sale-weakest-since-2016" target="_blank">$93 million in high bids</a>, compared to $159 million in the previous round. To prop up the industry and maintain production, the Trump administration is seeking to <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/032020-interior-considers-lowering-us-federal-royalty-rates-for-next-gulf-lease-sale-sources" target="_blank">lower royalty rates</a> and store excess production in the <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/491111-oil-giants-meet-at-white-house-amid-talk-of-buying-strategic" target="_blank">Strategic Petroleum Reserve</a>.
</p><p>
But as industry acts to cut its expenditures and downsize staff, will safety costs be a priority?
</p><p>
National energy policy was beyond the charge of the 2010 commission, but 10 years later, it is impossible to consider the future of offshore oil and gas without factoring in the need to
<a href="https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate" target="_blank">eliminate net greenhouse gas emission within 30 years</a> to limit climate change. Why would the United States consider expanding offshore exploration and drilling that might yield fossil fuels only 20 years from now?
</p><p>
Even in the historically developed Gulf of Mexico, rather than just "drill, baby, drill," I believe the U.S. should be developing a realistic transition plan for phasing out offshore fossil fuel production. Such a strategy should encompass not only ensuring high standards for safety and industry responsibility for abandoned infrastructure during the drawdown, but also an economic evolution for the region, including opportunities for carbon sequestration and renewable energy production. We need to ensure that there will be a vibrant and productive Gulf long after we cease removing its oil.
</p>
<p class=""><em>Donald Boesch is a Professor of Marine Science, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.<br/></em></p><p><em>Disclosure Statement: </em><em>Donald Boesch served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, a bipartisan presidential commission that operated in 2010-2011. He also served as an expert witness for the U.S. government in its lawsuit against BP for natural resource damages as a result of the spill.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-decade-after-the-deepwater-horizon-explosion-offshore-drilling-is-still-unsafe-132846" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em></p><p>
<em><br/>
</em>
</p><p>
<em><br/>
</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132846/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Plans to Aggressively Expand Offshore drilling in Protected ... ›
- The Climate Costs of Offshore Oil Drilling - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky on August 21, 2019 in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images.
Methane levels in the atmosphere experienced a dramatic rise in 2019, preliminary data released Sunday shows.
<p>The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that methane levels increased by 11.54 parts per billion (ppb) in 2019 over 2018 levels, the largest increase since 2014. "Last year's jump in methane is one of the biggest we've seen over the past twenty years," Rob Jackson, professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, told Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"It's too early to say why, but increases from both agriculture and natural gas use are likely. Natural gas consumption surged more than two percent last year." In the United States, the fossil fuel industry is the largest source of methane pollution, and emissions from the oil and gas sector have grown at least 40% over the last decade. </p>
<h4>For a deeper dive:</h4><p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-06/methane-emissions-hit-a-new-record-and-scientists-can-t-say-why" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="Renewable%20Sources%20Made%20up%2072%%20of%20New%20Energy%20Added%20in%202019" target="_blank">The Hill</a>, <a href="https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/methane-surge/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=85944970&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8C0yCNC7TWzjZEJq0igia-QWOy4iub7Sn8fOwOt3QloNO9PwifgZDyoLzWQXRgaT9jHlohnP5UKzH35BKjo9KjuuSd8w&_hsmi=85944970" target="_blank">Climate Signals</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Carbon Emissions Rise to Highest Level in at Least Three Million ... ›
- New 3D Methane Models Help NASA to Track Global Trends ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas explosion in Nigeria's commercial capital Lagos killed at least 15 people, injured many more and destroyed around 50 buildings on March 15, 2020. BENSON IBEABUCHI / AFP via Getty Images
At least 15 people died in a gas explosion in Lagos, Nigeria Sunday morning.
<p>More than 50 buildings were damaged in the blast, National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) acting coordinator in Lagos Ibrahim Farinloye told reporters, as <a href="https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/03/15-die-in-lagos-explosion-nema/" target="_blank">The Vanguard reported</a>. One of the buildings was the Bethlehem Girls College, and at least 60 injured students were taken to a hospital for treatment.</p><p>"The fire started with smoke," one eyewitness <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-blast-fire-idUSKBN2120W6?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR17-1dGnvUE15lgef8TuXB8xh-kLZwXMq8lJcVt78s5AJQg7qrx3GEzsT0" target="_blank">told Reuters</a>. "The smoke was coming up and later we heard a sound ... and some houses collapsed even the roofs."</p>
<div id="8607d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A32VFJ1584365062"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1239120572661084160" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">What you people heard in festac and other parts of Lagos is obviously just the ripple effect.
I fear for the peopl… https://t.co/LAyzIMLhxF</div> — Dawriz (@Dawriz)<a href="https://twitter.com/dawrizz/statuses/1239120572661084160">1584264340.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The explosion occurred in Abule Ado area of Lagos, but the blast was so loud it could be heard almost all across Lagos state, <a href="https://www.pulse.ng/news/metro/confusion-as-another-pipeline-explosion-rocks-lagos/ng8qhck" target="_blank">Pulse TV reported</a>.<br></p><p>It occurred around 9 a.m., and one family of four was killed in the blast returning from church, according to The Vanguard.</p>
<div id="bbd80" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WBEMRE1584365062"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1239251548611346432" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Lagos pipeline explosion: APC expresses shock, sympathises with victims https://t.co/OmeszGkRxy #vanguardnews https://t.co/kJ1yKHSr3k</div> — Vanguard Newspapers (@Vanguard Newspapers)<a href="https://twitter.com/vanguardngrnews/statuses/1239251548611346432">1584295568.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The explosion was sparked when a truck hit some gas cylinders at a gas processing plant near a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipeline</a> owned by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the state-owned company told Reuters.</p><p>Farinloye then explained to The Vanguard what happened next:</p><blockquote>"The resulting fire later spread to the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) oil pipeline passing through the area even though the pipeline has been shut down as a precautionary measure. <br><br>"The fire was eventually extinguished at 3:30 p.m. through the combined efforts of officials of the Lagos State Fire Service, Federal Fire Service, and Nigerian Navy Fire Tender."</blockquote><p>The fire also damaged the pipeline, but NNPC said that the pipeline shutdown would not impact oil delivery to the rest of the state, according to Reuters.</p><p>Pipeline explosions are a recurring danger in Nigeria, where they are usually caused by attempts to steal from the pipelines. One such fire <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/60-dead-in-nigerian-oil-pipeline-fire-2612753646.html" target="_self">killed 60 people in 2018</a>.</p><p>Nigeria is Africa's leading producer and exporter of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil" target="_self">oil</a>, but it has paid a price for its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction. In the Niger Delta, that extraction has led to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-spill" target="_self">oil spills</a> of 40 million liters (approximately 10.6 million liquid gallons) every year, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/06/this-place-used-to-be-green-the-brutal-impact-of-oil-in-the-niger-delta" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. This has polluted air and water and harmed residents' health.</p><p>"You just need to take a tour to understand the magnitude of the environmental abuse," Bayelsa state commissioner for the environment Udengs Eradiri told The Guardian. "[Bayelsa] used to be green, you could go to farm or fish. We used to have very impressive harvests. You would spend just an hour in the water and you have a lot of fish."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Oil and Gas Industry Is 25 to 40% More Responsible for Global Methane Emissions than Previously Thought
20 February
Popular
Flames from a flaring pit near a well in the Bakken Oil Field. The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is odorless when it comes directly out of the gas well. Orjan F. Ellingvag / Corbis / Getty Images
The oil and gas industry may be contributing even more to the climate crisis than we thought.
<p>A study <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8" target="_blank">published in Nature Wednesday</a> found that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> emissions from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> extraction have been underestimated by 25 to 40 percent.</p><p>"This indicates that the fossil fuel sector has a much more polluting impact beyond being responsible for the overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide emissions," Dr. Joeri Rogelj, a climate change lecturer at the Grantham Institute who was not involved with the research, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane" target="_blank">told The Guardian</a>. "This is worrying and overall bad news."</p><p>While carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas contributing the most to the climate crisis, methane is now responsible for 25 percent of current global warming, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/world/methane-emissions-humans-fossil-fuels-underestimated-climate-change/index.html" target="_blank">according to CNN</a>.</p><p>The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since the preindustrial era, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/climate/methane-flaring-oil-emissions.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_MBE_p_20200220&section=whatElse&campaign_id=51&instance_id=16113&segment_id=21428&user_id=d8eb7cee9d3c5ab39515239b6ec54d19&regi_id=88631294ion=whatElse" target="_blank">according to The New York Times</a>, but it has been difficult to pinpoint its source. Methane is released naturally by the ocean and by formations on land known as mud volcanoes. But it is also released by the fossil fuel industry, and most current estimates of the industry release of methane have been grassroots and not comprehensive, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/19/oil-gas-industry-far-worse-climate-impact-than-thought-fossil-fuels-methane" target="_blank">The Guardian pointed out</a>.</p>
<p>"We have a really good understanding of how much methane concentrations have increased in the atmosphere," study lead investigator and professor at the University of Rochester's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Vasilii Petrenko told CNN. "But it's difficult to track where the increases are coming from for a number of reasons."</p><p>In order to get a better estimate, the University of Rochester team looked at methane data from before the industrial era. They measured air from around 300 years ago trapped in bubbles in glaciers in Greenland, The Guardian reported. This showed that the natural contribution to methane emissions was much lower than the number currently used to estimate emissions, The New York Times explained.</p>
<p>"We've identified a gigantic discrepancy that shows the industry needs to, at the very least, improve their monitoring," study lead author Benjamin Hmiel told The New York Times. "If these emissions are truly coming from oil, gas extraction, production use, the industry isn't even reporting or seeing that right now."<br></p><p>The study does have a silver lining, however. If humans are responsible for the extra methane emissions, that means they can also control them, though this also means controlling the oil and gas sector.</p><p>"Placing stricter methane emission regulations on the fossil fuel industry will have the potential to reduce future global warming to a larger extent than previously thought," Hmiel told The Guardian. "Methane is important to study because if we make changes to our current methane emissions, it's going to reflect more quickly."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- New NASA Study Solves Climate Mystery, Confirms Methane Spike ... ›
- How to Reduce Methane Emissions From the Oil and Gas Industry ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Yard owner Ped Rossiter removes spare parts from a old, end-of-life Ford Transit as it is processed at Pylle Motor Spares and Metal Processing, a licensed scrap yard near Somerset in the UK in 2017 when the UK government had announced its ban on the sale of petrol and diesel powered cars and vans from 2040. The move followed similar pledges in France and has seen a number of car manufacturers offering substantial savings or 'scrappage' deals on new cars if customers trade-in older more polluting cars. Matt Cardy / Getty Images
Britain announced that it will ban sales of new diesel and gasoline powered cars in 15 years last week. That was five years earlier than expected, but necessary for the UK to reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, according to a statement from the prime minister's office, as CNN reported.
<p>The UK's Transportation Secretary Grant Shapps, revised that number this week, when he told BBC Radio 5 Live it could happen by 2032, adding there would be consultation, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51474769?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment&link_location=live-reporting-story" target="_blank">BBC reported</a>.</p>
<p>"Michael Gove announced the original 2040, the Prime Minister last week said actually we would like to do that by 2035 at the latest," Shapps said in the interview, as the <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1241215/petrol-diesel-car-ban-transport-secretary-grant-shapps-electric-cars" target="_blank">Express reported</a>. "We have said 2035 or even 2032. That's in consultation, we will say 2032-2035."</p>
<p>The 2032 target puts the UK in line with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Scotland" rel="noopener noreferrer">Scotland</a>, which, three years ago, pledged to ban sales of new combustion engine cars by 2032. However, Scotland does not have the authority to ban new cars, so it plans to phase out the need for combustion engines, by reducing the number of gas stations and adding many more charging stations, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51474769?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment&link_location=live-reporting-story" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported.</p>
<p>Glasgow, in Scotland, will host COP26 later this year, and the UK government is laying out its environmental proposals in the build-up the November UN conference, as the BBC reported. </p>
<p>The proposed ban also includes hybrid cars, so the only sales that will be allowed are fully electric or hydrogen cars and vans, according to the BBC.</p>
<p>Predictably, representatives from the automotive industry have balked against the timeline, raising concerns about whether the government would continue to subsidize sales of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles" rel="noopener noreferrer">electric vehicles</a>, a dearth of charging infrastructure, and potential job losses, as CNN reported.</p>
<p>"It's extremely concerning that government has seemingly moved the goalposts for consumers and industry on such a critical issue," Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said in a statement, as CNN reported. "With current demand for this still expensive technology still just a fraction of sales, it's clear that accelerating an already very challenging ambition will take more than industry investment."</p>
<p>The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders's numbers show that while electric car sales rose 144 percent last year in the UK, they make up less than two percent of the total number of cars on the road, as the Express reported. In 2019, nearly 1.5 million new combustion engines cars were sold in Britain. Only 37,000 electric cars were sold. </p>
<p>Since charging infrastructure is not in place yet, many car buyers have anxiety about running out of a charge and being stuck. In his interview, Shapps sought to ease anxiety by assuring the public that additional infrastructure for electric cars was part of the government's budget.</p>
<p>"We have domestic car producers and we want to help them to transition so we are doing a lot of work," Shapps said in his interview, as the Express reported. "In fact tomorrow I'm meeting with the car manufacturers on this very subject. We are putting in about £1.5billion at the moment and there is more to come."</p>
<p>Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged that no driver will be more than 30 miles away from a charging station. Yet, a considerable investment is needed to make that claim a reality, according to the Express.<a href="https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1241215/petrol-diesel-car-ban-transport-secretary-grant-shapps-electric-cars" target="_blank"></a></p>
<p>The commitment pairs the UK with several countries phasing out greenhouse gas emitting combustion engines, including <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Norway" rel="noopener noreferrer">Norway</a>, which wants all new passenger cars and vans sold in the country to be zero-emission vehicles by 2025, and India, which has called for new cars sold there to be powered by electricity by 2030, as CNN reported.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Bristol Diesel Ban Approved in Effort to Clean Air - EcoWatch ›
- UK Bans All New Petrol and Diesel Cars by 2040 - EcoWatch ›
- Scotland to Ban Sale of New Gas and Diesel Cars by 2032 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Drax Power Station in Carlton, North Yorkshire, England. Ian Britton / Flickr
Client Earth has the green light from a British court to sue the UK government for undermining its own planning authority's concerns about the climate crisis when it approved Europe's largest gas-fired power station, according to The Independent.
<p>Planning inspectors had recommended that the government not approve the power plant in North Yorkshire, owned by Drax, because of its enormous carbon footprint. The plant, once fully operational, could produce 75 percent of the UK's emissions from the power sector, according to lawyers at the environmental law charity Client Earth, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-for-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. Energy, in total, accounts for 20 percent of the UK's carbon footprint.</p><p>Despite the planning inspectors' warning, Andrea Leadsom, the secretary of state for business, energy, and industrial strategy, approved the project in October. Client Earth quickly stepped in with legal action. Now Britain's high court ruled that the charity has the legal authority to sue ministers. The case is expected to be heard in a couple of months, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-for-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>When planning inspectors first recommended against the project, they said the massive power plant is at odds with the direction that development needs to go. They said the 3.6GW power plant "would undermine the government's commitment, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, to cut greenhouse emissions" by having "significant adverse effects." According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-for-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, the Drax plant was the first big project rejected because of the climate crisis.</p><p>Considering the stark warning from the planning authority, Client Earth was angered at Andrea Leadsom's decision, which threatens the UK's commitment to net-zero emissions and to combating the climate crisis.</p><p>"With scientists ringing the alarm bells for decades, we shouldn't need to take the government to court over its decision," said Sam Hunter Jones, a lawyer with Client Earth, as <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drax-power-plant-station-sued-climate-crisis-clientearth-andrea-leadsom-emissions-a9309401.html" target="_blank">The Independent</a> reported.</p>
<p>"The secretary of state has ignored the recommendations of her own planning authority, and her decision is at odds with the government's own climate change plans to decarbonize in a cost-effective manner."</p><p>He added: "As the planning inspectorate found, if this plant goes ahead the public risks a carbon budget blowout, or a huge stranded asset that would require propping up by the taxpayer, or a combination of the two."</p><p>Drax, which announced the plan to build the massive plant in 2017, has consistently defended the plant as part of a plan to remove carbon from the atmosphere by 2030, which is a contradiction to what the planning inspectors concluded. A Drax spokeswoman told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-for-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that the company's carbon negative ambition could be achieved alongside "new, high efficiency gas power capacity as part of our portfolio" and provide electricity when the wind was not blowing or the sun shining.</p><p>Leadsom argued that the climate crisis was not a good reason to stop the plant from going forward. "While the significant adverse impact of the proposed development on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to atmosphere is acknowledged, the policy set out in the relevant National Policy Statements makes clear that this is not a matter that should displace the presumption in favor of granting consent," she said, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-for-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>Client Earth has pointed out that the UK does not need the power from the Drax station. It pointed to the UK government's most recent prediction that the country will need 6GW more of electricity by 2035. However, it has already approved more than 15GW of large-scale gas plants, so the Drax project would mean the UK has three times what the government estimates it will need, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/30/uk-sued-for-approving-europes-biggest-gas-power-station" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
1982 American Petroleum Institute Report Warned Oil Workers Faced 'Significant' Risks From Radioactivity
24 January
Health + Wellness
Radiation warning sign at the Union Carbide uranium mill in Rifle, Colorado, in 1972. Credit: National Archives / Environmental Protection Agency, public domain
By Sharon Kelly
Back in April last year, the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency decided it was "not necessary" to update the rules for toxic waste from oil and gas wells. Torrents of wastewater flow daily from the nation's 1.5 million active oil and gas wells and the agency's own research has warned it may pose risks to the country's drinking water supplies.
<p>On Tuesday, a major new <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/oil-gas-fracking-radioactive-investigation-937389/" target="_blank">investigative report</a> published by Rolling Stone and authored by reporter Justin Nobel delves deep into the risks that the oil and gas industry's waste — much of it radioactive — poses to the industry's own workers and to the public.<em></em></p>
<p>"There is little public awareness of this enormous waste stream," Nobel, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/user/justin-nobel" target="_blank">who also reports for DeSmog</a>, wrote, "the disposal of which could present dangers at every step — from being transported along America's highways in unmarked trucks; handled by workers who are often misinformed and underprotected; leaked into waterways; and stored in dumps that are not equipped to contain the toxicity."</p><p>Additional documents obtained by Nobel and shared with DeSmog show that a report prepared for the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute</a> (API), the nation's largest oil and gas trade group, described the risks posed by the industry's radioactive wastes to workers as "significant" in 1982 — long before the shale drilling rush unleashed new floods of wastewater from the industry — including waste from the Marcellus Shale, which can carry <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-handle-1109" target="_blank">unusually</a> high levels of radioactive contamination.</p>
A Trillion Toxic Gallons
<p>Oil and gas wells pump out nearly a trillion gallons of wastewater a year, Rolling Stone reported. That's literally a river of waste — enough to replace all the water flowing from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico for more than two and a half days.</p><p>Much of that wastewater, often referred to by the industry as "brine," carries high levels, not of familiar table salt, but of corrosive salts found deep below the Earth's surface, as well as toxic compounds and carcinogens.</p><p>That water can also carry serious amounts of radioactive materials. The Rolling Stone report, labeled "sobering" by the <a href="https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/an-impeachment-media-diet-calls-for-moderation-a-hillary-scoop-is-the-ringer-for-sale/" target="_blank">Poynter Institute</a>, described levels of radium as high as 28,500 picocuries per liter in brine from the Marcellus Shale, underlying Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and West Virginia, levels hundreds of times as much as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would allow in industrial discharges from other industries.</p><p>The oil and gas industry's waste, however, isn't regulated like most other industry's wastes, slipping instead through loopholes carved out in the nation's cornerstone environmental laws, including <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw/special-wastes" target="_blank">exemptions</a> for the industry in federal laws covering hazardous waste.</p><p>"If I had a beaker of that on my desk and accidentally dropped it on the floor, they would shut the place down," <a href="https://cmdis.rpi.edu/faculty/yuri-gorby" target="_blank">Yuri Gorby</a>, a microbiologist who'd studied radioactive materials at the U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Energy, told the magazine. "And if I dumped it down the sink, I could go to jail."</p>Crude Oil, Gas, and Radiation
<p>"It is well-known that some naturally occurring elements, uranium for example, have an affinity for crude oil," the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/1982%20API%20Analysis%20of%20RADIONUCLIDES%20in%20oil%20and%20gas%20industry.pdf" target="_blank">1982 API report </a>says, noting that uranium can decay into elements like radium-226 ("a potent source of radiation exposure, both internal and external," API's report explained) and radon-222 (which can "cause the most severe impact to public health," it observed).</p><p>"Almost all materials of interest and use to the petroleum industry contain measurable quantities of radionuclides that reside finally in process equipment, product streams, or waste," the 1982 report notes.</p><p>"This contamination can produce <u>significant occupational exposures</u>," API's report continued (emphasis in original).</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjYwNDA1MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTgwNzUzOX0.f1riTcj11_moES2_oDX-Ye5j9Y1uIiK6YnuN7TV7ghk/img.jpg?width=980" id="22808" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2735eb5edfa7c55183a14a31a3d3208e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Excerpt from a 1982 report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute and titled "An Analysis of the Impact of the Regulation of 'Radionuclides' as a Hazardous Air Pollutant on the Petroleum Industry."
<p>API's report focused on the possibility that the federal government might step in and regulate those radioactive materials under the Clean Air Act or under federal Superfund laws.</p><p>"Depending on the mode of definition," the report adds, "very small quantities of petroleum products could easily contain reportable quantities of [radioactive materials]." A chart lists amounts as small as a half a barrel of crude oil or 17 cubic feet of natural gas as containing "one reportable quantity of uranium or radon" under the most restrictive definition.</p><p>The report labels uranium "a somewhat different dilemma" than radon gas. "We estimated earlier in this paper that significant quantities of uranium potentially enter our refineries via crude oil," the report continues. "Little is known of its fate, however."</p><p>"Since the law of conservation of matter must apply, it can only end up in the product, the process waste, remain in the process equipment, or escape into the environment," the report notes, calling for more study, particularly of the industry's refining equipment and waste.</p><div class="DC-embed DC-embed-document DV-container" id="DV-viewer-6668723-1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and"></div>
<script src="//assets.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script>
DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6668723-1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and.js", {
responsive: true,
container: "#DV-viewer-6668723-1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and"
});
</script><noscript>
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668723/1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and.pdf">1982 API Analysis of Radionuclides in Oil and Gas Industry (PDF)</a>
<br />
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668723/1982-API-Analysis-of-Radionuclides-in-Oil-and.txt">1982 API Analysis of Radionuclides in Oil and Gas Industry (Text)</a>
</noscript>
<p>Some of the report's most stark language warned about the possibility of federal regulation of the industry's radioactive wastes.</p><p>"It is concluded that the regulation of radionuclides could impose a severe burden on API member companies," the report says, "and it would be prudent to monitor closely both regulatory actions."</p><p>API spokesperson Reid Porter provided to DeSmog the group's response to the Rolling Stone investigation.</p><p>"We take each report of safety or health issues related to energy development very seriously," Porter said. "Nothing is more important than the health and safety of our workers, the local environment, and the communities where we live, operate, and raise families. Natural gas and oil companies meet or exceed strict federal and state regulations and also undergo regular inspections to ensure that all materials are managed, stored, transported, and disposed of safely. Through regular monitoring, ongoing testing, and strict handling protocols, industry operations are guided by internationally recognized standards and best practices to provide for safe working environments and public safety."</p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> also pointed to a one-page <a href="https://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Hydraulic-Fracturing/Environmental-Stewardship/NORM-In-the-Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Industry.pdf" target="_blank">document</a> titled "<span style="background-color: initial;">NORM</span> [naturally occurring radioactive materials] in the Oil and Natural Gas Industry." As of publication time, <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> had not responded to questions from DeSmog regarding the 1982 report.</p>
10 Years Later, Hazards 'Widespread'; 20 Years Later, Workers Sue Over Cancers
<p>Over a decade later, problems persisted, other documents indicate. "Contamination of oil and gas facilities with naturally occurring radioactive materials (<span style="background-color: initial;">NORM</span>) is widespread," a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Peter%20Gray_NORM%20Contamination%20in%20the%20Petroleum%20Industry%2C%201993_Society%20of%20Petroleum%20Engineers.pdf" target="_blank">1993 paper</a> published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers warned. "Some contamination may be sufficiently severe that maintenance and other personnel may be exposed to hazardous concentration."</p><p>Nonetheless, the paper focused on the potential for "over-regulation."</p><p>"Where possible, industry input should be directed to minimize an over-regulation of NORM contamination in the industry," author Peter Gray, an expert on radioactivity who formerly worked for Phillips Petroleum Co., wrote. He added that concentrations of radioactive contamination at the time were "relatively low and do not usually present a health hazard to the public or to most personnel in the industry," but added that some facilities "may be hazardous to maintenance personnel in particular."</p><div class="DC-embed DC-embed-document DV-container" id="DV-viewer-6668724-Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum"></div> <script src="//assets.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script> DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6668724-Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum.js", { responsive: true, container: "#DV-viewer-6668724-Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum" }); </script><noscript> <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668724/Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum.pdf">Peter Gray NORM Contamination in the Petroleum Industry, 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers (PDF)</a> <br /> <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668724/Peter-Gray-NORM-Contamination-in-the-Petroleum.txt">Peter Gray NORM Contamination in the Petroleum Industry, 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers (Text)</a> </noscript><p>The 1993 paper notes that some oil-producing states had passed or were considering passing laws to protect against the industry's radioactive wastes, noting in particular that Louisiana and Mississippi had regulations in effect, and that Louisiana had required "radiation surveys of every petroleum facility in the state."</p><p>But state and federal regulators largely failed to act, Rolling Stone found. "Of 21 significant oil-and-gas-producing states, only five have provisions addressing workers, and just three include protections for the public, according to <a href="http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2018/02/Geltman_FP-2.pdf" target="_blank">research by [Elizabeth Ann Glass] Geltman</a>, the public-health expert," the magazine reported. "Much of the legislation that does exist seems hardly sufficient."</p><p>In documents dated nearly two decades later, from a 2011 lawsuit brought by more than 30 Louisiana oilfield workers who'd developed cancer, plaintiff's experts described as resulting from their exposure to radioactive materials at work.</p><p>The 2013 plaintiff's expert <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/OCCUPATIONAL%20EXPOSURES%20TO%20RADIOACTIVE%20SCALE%20AND%20SLUDGE_Coleman%20et%20al%20v.%20H.C.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> describes in detail how jobs like roustabout, roughneck, and derrickman can expose workers to radioactive materials, including a sludge where radioactive elements concentrate that collects inside pipes and so-called "pipe scale," or crusty deposits that also attract radioactive materials. The case <a href="https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/doc1/08518908036" target="_blank">ended</a> in October 2016, following a long string of settlements on unspecified terms by individual plaintiffs in the case, public court records show.</p><div class="DC-embed DC-embed-document DV-container" id="DV-viewer-6668726-OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and"></div>
<script src="//assets.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script>
DV.load("https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6668726-OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and.js", {
responsive: true,
container: "#DV-viewer-6668726-OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and"
});
</script><noscript>
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668726/OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and.pdf">OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES to RADIOACTIVE SCALE and SLUDGE Coleman Et Al v H C (PDF)</a>
<br />
<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6668726/OCCUPATIONAL-EXPOSURES-to-RADIOACTIVE-SCALE-and.txt">OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES to RADIOACTIVE SCALE and SLUDGE Coleman Et Al v H C (Text)</a>
</noscript>
Tracking the Trucks
<p>Nobel's Rolling Stone exposé depicts radioactive drilling waste sloshing into a striking array of corners.</p><p>For example, to keep dust down, the "brine" can be spread on roads, like a stretch in Pennsylvania where Nobel describes a group of Amish girls strolling barefoot. Nobel adds that contractors pick up waste directly from the wellhead and that in 2016 alone, more than 10.5 million gallons were sprayed on roads in the northwestern corner of Pennsylvania.</p><p>The waste has also been sold at Lowe's, bottled as "AquaSalina" and marketed as a pet-safe way to fight ice and salt, though an Ohio state lab found it contains radium at more than 40 times the levels the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows in discharge from industry. And the radium-laced waste is spilled from trucks transporting it, in potential what the article indicates may be a violation of federal law.</p><p>One brine truck driver, identified only as a man named Peter from Ohio, started taking his own samples after being told by another worker with a radiation detector that he'd been hauling "one of the 'hottest loads' he'd ever seen," Rolling Stone reports. "A lot of guys are coming up with cancer, or sores and skin lesions that take months to heal," Peter told the magazine. Tests by a university lab found radium levels as high as 8,500 picocuries per liter, the article adds.</p><p><span></span>One expert, scientist Marvin Reisnikoff, who'd served as one of the plaintiff's experts in the lawsuit brought by the Louisiana oilfield workers and co-authored the 2013 report, told Rolling Stone that a standard brine truck rolling through Pennsylvania might be carrying radioactive wastewater at levels a thousand times higher than those allowed under federal Department of Transportation (<span style="background-color: initial;">DOT</span>) limits. But, a <span style="background-color: initial;">DOT</span> spokesperson told Rolling Stone, federal regulators rely heavily on industry self-reporting, and the rules seem generally unenforced.</p><p>Environmental groups immediately called for congressional hearings into the drilling industry's radioactive wastes.</p><p>"This alarming report brings into stark relief what we already knew to be true," Food & Water Watch Policy Director Mitch Jones said in a statement calling for a congressional investigation, "that highly toxic and radioactive waste generated by fossil fuel drilling and fracking cannot be stored or disposed of safely, and in fact is often being intentionally dispersed in our communities."</p><p>"It is imperative that Congress hold hearings soon to examine and expose the full extent of the threat oil and gas waste poses to families and workers throughout America," he added, "and take urgent action to halt fracking and the legal and illegal dispersal of the waste currently taking place."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/22/american-petroleum-institute-oil-workers-radioactive-nobel-rollingstone" rel="noopener noreferrer">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Uranium Mining's Toxic Legacy: Why the U.S. Risks Repeating ... ›
- EPA Proposal Could Raise Radiation Exposure Limits - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less