A bat with white-nose syndrome in Great Smoky Mountains National Park on March 12, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A deadly fungal disease responsible for the deaths of millions of bats across the U.S. has been confirmed in Texas for the first time.
<p>White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a disease in bats caused by a cold-loving fungus known as <a href="https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/static-page/the-fungus" target="_blank"><em>Pseudogymnoascus destructans</em></a>, which infects the skin on the muzzle, ear and wings of hibernating bats. Infected bats have obvious fungal growth on their body, but may also behave erratically both inside and outside of caves during the winter when they should be hibernating, according to the <a href="https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/static-page/what-is-white-nose-syndrome" target="_blank">White-Nose Syndrome Response Team</a>. The fungus that causes the disease was first detected in the state in 2017, but there were no signs of the WNS that it can cause, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (<a href="https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20190508a" target="_blank">TPWD</a>). In the years since, the fungus has spread to dozens of sites in 21 counties. At the time, biologists said that it usually takes a few years after detecting the fungus for the disease to manifest.</p>
<p>The infected animal is a type of bat known as cave myotis (<em>Myotis velifer</em>) and was found in the central part of the state on Feb. 23. Analysis conducted by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center confirmed the presence of both the fungus and the disease that it causes.</p><p>"Finding WNS in Central Texas for the first time is definitely concerning," <a href="https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?req=20200305a" target="_blank">said</a> Nathan Fuller, bat specialist at TPWD. "Biologists had hoped that white-nose syndrome, a disease that thrives in cold conditions, might not occur in warmer parts of Texas. We're following up on several other reports to determine whether this was an isolated incident or if the impacts are more widespread. We recently received a report from a site in Bell County of five cave myotis that we suspect were infected as well. We should know more in the next few weeks."</p>
<p>WNS was first detected in New York more than a decade ago and has since spread from the northeastern part of the country to the southcentral states at what the USGS calls an "<a href="https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-white-nose-syndrome?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products" target="_blank">alarming rate</a>." It is believed to have been introduced from Europe where bats appear to be resistant to the fungus. The fungus is largely transmitted between bats but can be brought into caves on the clothing and gear of humans.</p><p>As of this year, millions of bats in at least 33 states and seven Canadian provinces have died from the disease. In some parts of the U.S., normally long-lived winter bat populations have fallen by more than 90 percent. Because many species only produce one offspring each year, experts say it could take decades for some populations to recover.</p>
<p>Currently there is no cure for WNS but scientists are collaborating to study the disease and understand how it spreads to infect bats, as well as what can be done to control it. Lab tests have shown that oral vaccines may increase the chances of surviving an infection, <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/vaccines-may-help-bats-fight-white-nose-syndrome" target="_blank">reports</a> Science News. Evidence suggests that WNS only occurs in bats and is not transmissible to humans as the fungus only grows at temperatures between 41 and 68 degrees Fahrenheit, which is much lower than the human body, according to the <a href="https://www.nps.gov/articles/what-is-white-nose-syndrome.htm" target="_blank">National Park Service</a>. No human infections have been documented after exposure to WNS-infected bats or caves.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Texas Bill Would Make Protesting Pipelines a Felony on Par With Attempted Murder
20 May 2019
Politics
Activists in North Dakota confront pipeline construction activities. A Texas bill would impose steep penalties for such protests. Speak Freely / ACLU
By Eoin Higgins
A bill making its way through the Texas legislature would make protesting pipelines a third-degree felony, the same as attempted murder.
<p><a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB3557#vote161" target="_blank">H.B. 3557</a>, which is under consideration in the state Senate after passing the state House earlier this month, ups penalties for interfering in energy infrastructure construction by making the protests a felony. Sentences would range from two to 10 years.</p><p>The legislation was authored by Republican state Rep. Chris Paddie. It passed the state House May 7 on a 99 to 45 vote, with two abstentions. The bill is being cosponsored in the state Senate by Republican state Sen. Pat Fallon.</p><p>In remarks on the state House floor during the bill's passage, Paddie <a href="https://www.statesman.com/news/20190507/house-backs-stiffer-penalties-for-those-who-damage-pipelines" target="_blank">sought to assuage the fears</a> of those who believe the legislation will target non-violent protest.</p><p>"This bill does not affect those who choose to peacefully protest for any reason," said Paddie. "It attaches liability to those who potentially damage or destroy critical infrastructure facilities."</p><p>But opponents of the measure don't agree, pointing to the bill's language.</p><p>"It's an anti-protest bill, favoring the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> industry, favoring corporations over people," Frankie Orona, executive director of the Society of Native Nations, told the Austin American-Statesman.</p><p><a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/pipeline-protesters-could-face-20-years-in-prison-under-bill-in-texas-house/" target="_blank">The legislation is "is criminalizing conscientious, caring people who are the canaries for their communities," activist Lori Glover told the Texas Observer.</a></p><p>A hearing on the law in the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development on Wednesday drew opponents of the measure to <a href="http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=14545" target="_blank">speak out</a> against the law, but it's unclear if their testimony will make a difference.</p>
<p>The Texas bill is just the latest piece of legislation at the state level to target pipeline protests. In the wake of a spike in anti-pipeline actions over the past few years, Grist<em> </em><a href="https://grist.org/article/after-standing-rock-protesting-pipelines-can-get-you-a-decade-in-prison-and-100k-in-fines" target="_blank">reported</a> Tuesday, a number of states have come down on environmental activists.</p><blockquote>The effort to punish pipeline protestors has spread across states with ample oil and gas reserves in the last two years and, in some cases, has garnered bipartisan support. Besides Louisiana, four other states — Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa — have enacted similar laws after protests against the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dakota-access-pipeline">Dakota Access Pipeline</a> generated national attention and inspired a wave of civil disobedience.</blockquote><p>The bill is drawing national attention as well.</p><p>"Texas aims to make pipeline protest a third-degree felony, same as attempted murder," climate activist Bill McKibben <a href="https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1129362925485821952" target="_blank">tweeted</a> on Friday.</p><p>In a tweet, the advocacy group Public Citizen <a href="https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1128701777736548352" target="_blank">described</a> the legislation as "an oil and gas backed effort to squash environmental protest."</p><p>"This needs to be a nation-wide story," the group said.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"Could someone sharing details of a protest — time, place, what to wear, etc. — on his or her <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Facebook?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Facebook</a> page be seen as "advising" rioters?" <a href="https://t.co/fhgTXWBh6V">https://t.co/fhgTXWBh6V</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NRDC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/kxlblockade?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kxlblockade</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1127287374503919618?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/17/texas-state-bill-would-make-protesting-pipelines-felony-par-attempted-murder?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
An extended version of the Fuxing bullet train at the China National Railway Test Center on Oct. 15, 2018 in Beijing, China. VCG / VCG via Getty Images
By Jeff Turrentine
Is it just us?
Other countries don't seem to have a problem getting their high-speed rail systems on track. This superfast, fuel-efficient form of mass transit is wildly popular throughout Asia and the European Union. Japan's sleek Shinkansen line, the busiest high-speed rail system in the world, carries an estimated 420,000 riders every weekday. In China, the new Fuxing Hao bullet train now hurries more than 100 million passengers a year between Beijing and Shanghai at a top speed of 218 miles an hour, allowing its riders to make the trip of 775 miles — roughly the distance from New York City to Chicago — in about four and a half hours. Spain, Germany and France together have more than 4,500 miles of track dedicated to high-speed rail, over which more than 150 million passengers travel annually.
<p>But here in the U.S., attempts to implement regional high-speed rail networks have floundered and faltered. The most recent setback was in California, where just last month the state's new governor, Gavin Newsom, announced that he would be <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-12/california-governor-says-he-s-dropping-high-speed-rail-plan" target="_blank">dramatically downsizing</a> an ambitious, exciting system linking the northern and southern portions of the state via a 220-mph bullet train. Cost overruns had more or less doubled the original price tag from roughly $40 billion to $77 billion, with some estimates placing the final bill at nearly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/california-high-speed-rail.html" target="_blank">$100 billion</a>. As of right now, the previously planned 800-mile line between Los Angeles and San Francisco has dwindled to a $10.6 billion project across 171 miles between the rural Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced — what cynics have mockingly dubbed a "<a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Time-to-derail-California-s-train-to-nowhere-13632213.php" target="_blank">train to nowhere</a>."</p><p>Meanwhile, in Texas, plans for a bullet train linking the state's two biggest cities, Dallas and Houston, are going forward — but not without plenty of resistance. Unlike the California project, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/airplanes-vs-bullet-trains-race-texas" target="_blank">Texas Central Railroad's</a> project, pegged at $12 billion to $20 billion, is being financed entirely with private funds, so no one is complaining about the money. Instead, the complaints come from landowners and other stakeholders upset about the <a href="https://www.palestineherald.com/news/legal-issues-could-derail-high-speed-rail-in-texas/article_8caeeab8-4136-11e9-bcf8-875c732afdd3.html" target="_blank">seizure and purchase of privately owned tracts</a> through <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/uncle-sam-wants-youto-vacate-premises" target="_blank">eminent domain</a>. In late January, a <a href="http://www.texansagainsthsr.com/category/blog-article/press-releases/" target="_blank">court ruled</a> that Texas Central Railroad, in point of fact, isn't even a railroad in the legally recognized sense of the word, since it doesn't currently own anything by way of tracks or rolling stock. As a result, the company's reliance on eminent domain to obtain land for its future trains' right-of-way is misplaced — and illegal — according to the judge overseeing the case. (Texas Central Railroad must now face individual landowners in court.)</p>
<p>The friction these projects are encountering can take many forms, but there's no denying that it's real: A lot of Americans seem downright resistant to high-speed rail. To some, whatever benefits rail travel may confer to individual riders, cities or the environment can't ever be enough to offset the massive (and, typically, ballooning) costs to taxpayers during the construction period, which can stretch on for decades. To others, high-speed rail projects — no matter how they're funded — are little more than land grabs that punish rural communities in pursuit of what many perceive as an urbanist folly.</p><p>I can't help but wonder if behind both sentiments is a latent fear: that this form of mass transit, precisely <em>because</em> it's so popular in other cultures, somehow poses a threat to our own culture of rugged individualism. The history of American transportation conjures romantic images of the "lone rider" — in the past on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlyWlhobDU" target="_blank">horseback</a>, now on a <a href="http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/193236/Easy-Rider-Movie-Clip-Born-To-Be-Wild.html" target="_blank">motorcycle</a> or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sleoPDnze4A" target="_blank">in a car</a> — charting his or her own course out on the open road, free from interference or intervention. This notion often gets compressed into a shrugged assertion: <em>Mass transit is a nice idea, but let's face it: America is a car culture. As a people, we just like to drive. We don't like to be driven.</em></p>
<p><br>Actually, if this was ever true, the data suggest it is <a href="https://www.arity.com/move/patient-change-gonna-come/" target="_blank">less true now</a>. Millennials, especially, are <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/wisniewski/ct-biz-young-adults-cars-attitudes-20181106-story.html" target="_blank">rejecting the romanticization</a> of automobiles. According to <a href="https://www.arity.com/move/patient-change-gonna-come/" target="_blank">a 2018 report</a> published by Arity, a Chicago-based company that studies transportation data, more than half of millennials say that car ownership isn't worth the money or the hassle, and that they don't much care for driving anyway. It's worth noting that these are the same people who are currently leading the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/aocgreen-new-deal-new-era-millennial-climate-politics/582295/" target="_blank">leading the public fight</a> against <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>, refusing to accept the untenable status quo foisted upon them through the inaction of their elders.</p><p>This generation is also, not coincidentally, <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/26/millennials-cities-where-they-live-218059" target="_blank">key to the future economic success</a> of cities, states and regions. If you want to attract young, educated professionals to your city or town, you'd be wise to meet their demands for better and more plentiful public transportation.</p><p>Let's face it: When it comes to feelings about mass transit, young Americans appear to have more in common with Asian and European citizens of all ages than they do with older Americans. In anticipation of the day when they're calling the shots economically and politically — a day that's already dawning — we should be busy installing high-speed rail systems in all regions of the country where traffic congestion, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">pollution</a> and the expenses associated with driving hinder travel between major cities and reduce the quality of life for their citizens.</p><p>Yes, we should be mindful of costs. Yes, we should be mindful of landowners' concerns. But should we allow these factors to derail us? Absolutely not.</p>
<div id="80e9d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="YYV89G1576662070"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1041717581592383488" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">World's First Zero-Emissions Hydrogen Trains Enter Service https://t.co/1fvIKsRIUL</div> — Enviro Voter Project (@Enviro Voter Project)<a href="https://twitter.com/Enviro_Voter/statuses/1041717581592383488">1537199800.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><em>Jeff Turrentine is the culture & politics columnist at NRDC's <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/high-speed-rail-rocks" target="_blank">onEarth</a>.</em> </p>From Your Site Articles
- Dutch Trains Are World's First to Run on 100% Wind Power ... ›
- Kochs Mobilize to Kill Public Transit Plans - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Why Beto O’Rourke’s Oil-Related Money Shows We Need a Just Transition to Renewable Energy
26 February 2019
Insights + Opinion
Greenpeace
By Tim Donaghy
Time is running out for the oil and gas industry, and they know it. But delaying the transition to a clean energy economy even for a few more years means billions of dollars in profits for their investors. The 2018 elections show that even in their twilight years, oil cash can corrupt our democracy and block necessary progress on climate. The industry spent millions to kill off a Green New Deal-style initiative in Washington state and a Colorado initiative that would have increased the buffer between homes and schools and drilling areas.
When popular democracy threatened their profits, the oil industry opened up their checkbooks. And they'll run the same playbook on the fledgling Green New Deal too — unless we stop them.
<p>This is why <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/how-to-demand-real-climate-leadership/" target="_blank">phasing out fossil fuels and getting dirty energy money out of our elections are key ingredients in any federal action on climate change</a>. Real climate leaders need to counteract the political, financial and social power of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industry, or risk seeing a tide of oil money wash away progress.</p><p>But we also need a just transition that lifts up workers and communities. Here's why.</p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTIyOTg5Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTIzMDU5Mn0.U3eTUY_Nu7IpsfQS1Ty4C5Mc8B0FrnG94Cac9crfGEE/img.png?width=980" id="e4b98" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c6a94d316548bb2cae9ef189c49cba9c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">While O'Rourke actually didn't take PAC money, he did raise a ton of money in individual donations from people who work in the oil and gas industry. </small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Center for Responsive Politics</small></p><p>Recently, a mini-controversy erupted across Twitter when people realized that the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=E01&cycle=2018&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U" target="_blank">number two recipient of oil and gas campaign contributions in 2018</a> was actually … Democratic rising star Beto O'Rourke, who nearly unseated Texas Senator Ted Cruz in a close race. In fact, only Cruz himself raised more money from the oil and gas industry.<br></p><p>The revelation was immediately sucked into the <a href="https://twitter.com/PaulHRosenberg/status/1079465825419939840" target="_blank">insatiable vortex of speculation about the 2020</a> presidential primaries, contrasting O'Rourke's record with that of other presidential hopefuls. It was especially confusing since O'Rourke had publicly pledged not to take any money from political action committees (PACs, which are often used by corporations and industries to influence elections) and was even at one point listed on the <a href="http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/" target="_blank">No Fossil Fuel Money</a> pledge website before being removed. What gives?</p><p>While O'Rourke actually didn't take PAC money, he <em>did</em> raise a ton of money in individual donations from people who work in the oil and gas industry. When you donate money to a political campaign you have to disclose your employer — meaning that everyone from drilling crews all the way up to the CEO count in the industry contribution totals. And it turns out oil is still an enormous part of the Texas economy.</p><p>The following <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/counties-with-highest-concentration-of-employment-in-oil-and-gas-extraction-june-2014.htm" target="_blank">map from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics</a> shows the counties with the highest concentrations of oil and gas employment. The counties in green show communities where the local economy is most dependent on oil and gas, and where a just and equitable energy transition is most crucial. Naturally many of those counties are located in Texas, and in fact O'Rourke made it a campaign talking point that he had visited each one of Texas's 254 counties.</p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTIyOTkwNi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjA3MTkyMX0.eFQKu1ZwyGeshPYSOael9ZPeBHyCr4yRSwm2KlKJVCA/img.png?width=980" id="99f0e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0701e972f4636fff94630c6cb08a2127" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p>A just transition away from fossil fuel reliance envisions an inclusive, participatory process that leaves these workers and communities better off than before. Policies to bring about this transition could include local and state planning bodies, protections for workers such as guaranteed pensions and wage replacement, job retraining and placement in growing renewable industries, and investment targeted at specific communities. As climate justice <a href="https://twitter.com/naomiaklein/status/516967907872362497?lang=en" target="_blank">activists have stated</a>, "<a href="https://movementgeneration.org/transition-is-inevitable-justice-is-not-a-critical-framework-for-just-recovery/" target="_blank">Transition is inevitable. Justice is not</a>." Without the voices of these workers and communities, any plan to build a more sustainable economy will inevitably fail.<br></p><p>A lot of O'Rourke's oil and gas donations were indeed from ordinary Texans excited by his candidacy, but at least <a href="https://splinternews.com/by-accepting-oil-money-beto-orourke-broke-a-promise-to-1831000480" target="_blank">some came from oil and gas executives</a> and other wealthy donors giving the maximum $2,700 contribution, which is also a serious problem. The No Fossil Fuel Money pledge applies not just to PAC money, but also donations of $200 or more from fossil fuel executives. O'Rourke was on the right track in calling out the pernicious influence of PAC money on our elections, but we still need to demand more of our politicians. Hopefully going forward, he (and many other candidates) will be able to fully comply with the pledge.</p><p>In comparison, his opponent <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?dt=1&y=2018&f-fc=1&c-exi=1&c-t-eid=210204&d-cci=33#%5B%7B1%7Cgro=c-r-id,c-t-sts,c-t-p,c-t-eid,d-et,d-id" target="_blank">Ted Cruz took over $100,000 directly from the oil and gas industry PACs</a> — including a $40,000 check from Valero's PAC, and $5,000 donations from PACs representing Phillips 66, Devon Energy, ExxonMobil, and others.</p><p>But a question remains: are small donations from ordinary folks in the oil industry the same as a $2,700 check from a CEO — or a mega-donation from a PAC? Clearly PAC and executive money are donated with the goal of obtaining access to politicians and ultimately influencing policy to benefit companies who are wrecking the climate, and overall small donations only make up a <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/dollarocracy/04.php" target="_blank">small fraction of campaign funds</a>. But in many places where the oil and gas industry is strong, there are inevitably a large number of non-millionaire workers who depend on the industry for their livelihood.</p><p>Corporate money in politics is absolutely corrupting our democracy, yet O'Rourke's small donors should remind us that many parts of the U.S. are economically dependent on oil and gas extraction, and that those workers need to be at the center of any transition away from fossil fuels. The good news is that we know that building out a clean energy economy will require putting a lot of people to work, and <a href="https://www.labor4sustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/cleanenergy_10212015_main.pdf" target="_blank">dollar for dollar, renewable energy creates more jobs</a> than fossil fuels.</p><p>It will take strong climate leadership in D.C. and a committed movement of people to defeat these entrenched 19th-century industrialists. <a href="https://engage.us.greenpeace.org/onlineactions/Uz6V_WEFEEeX2pKUsSd05Q2?utm_source=website&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=greennewdeal_leadgen_multi&sourceid=319770&_ga=2.18310905.1768985442.1551134501-178382324.1545141538" target="_blank">In order to get us to the green future we want, federal legislation MUST halt any major oil, gas, and coal expansion projects.</a></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="372b5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ZLE2G31576662637"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1057669589201383424" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Big Oil Pours Record $30M to Sway Voters Against Nation's First Carbon Tax https://t.co/wKSZn2veCK https://t.co/7cKdNfDvg8</div> — Renewable Search (@Renewable Search)<a href="https://twitter.com/RenewableSearch/statuses/1057669589201383424">1541003055.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Tim Donaghy is a senior research specialist with <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/" target="_blank">Greenpeace USA</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The W. A. Parish Power Plant, owned by NRG Energy, is one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the U.S. Roy Luck / CC BY 2.0
Power plants across Texas are leaching toxins into groundwater, according to new research. A report released this week from the Environmental Integrity Project found that all of the state's 16 coal-fired power plants are leaching contaminants from coal ash into the ground, and almost none of the plants are properly lining their pits to prevent leakage.
<p>"We found contamination everywhere we looked, poisoning groundwater aquifers and recreational fishing spots across the state," EIP attorney and report co-author Abel Russ told the Texas Tribune. "This confirms that dumping large volumes of toxic waste in poorly-lined pits is a terrible idea." </p><p>As reported by the <a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/report-power-plants-are-leaking-cancer-causing-toxins-into-groundwater-across-texas/" target="_blank">Texas Observer</a>:</p><blockquote>"While power plants' propensity to foul nearby air is well-documented, the danger of coal ash dumping has seen much less play in the news media.</blockquote><blockquote>...</blockquote><blockquote>Meanwhile, the Trump administration <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397619-trump-admin-eases-standards-for-coal-ash-disposal" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">has loosened</a> coal ash dumping rules, relaxing pollution thresholds for certain contaminants and allowing states to waive some groundwater monitoring requirements. The action fits within the larger trend of Trump and U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry <a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/despite-trump-and-rick-perrys-best-efforts-another-coal-plant-eats-the-dust-in-texas/" target="_blank">trying their damndest</a> to prop up coal despite it being a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/ripe-for-retirement-closing-americas-costliest-coal-plants.html#.W7VJ-mhKiUk" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">wildly inefficient vehicle</a> for energy generation. At the state level, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) proposed in August a "deeply flawed" plan to regulate coal ash disposal, the report says. The TCEQ plan was later withdrawn.</blockquote><blockquote>Representatives from TCEQ did not respond to a request for comment.</blockquote><blockquote>Many of the plants identified in the report are also major air polluters."</blockquote>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b20f0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KG7W081576779638"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1002306253304016896" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Groups Sue Utility Company for Leaking Coal Ash Into National Scenic River https://t.co/cz7GzKj7r1 @BeyondCoal @dirtyenergy @Coal_Ash</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1002306253304016896">1527803407.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:<br></strong></p><p><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/17/report-texas-coal-power-plants-leaching-toxic-pollutants-groundwater/" target="_blank">Texas Tribune</a>, <a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/report-power-plants-are-leaking-cancer-causing-toxins-into-groundwater-across-texas/" target="_blank">Texas Observer</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-texas-coal-pollution/sixteen-coal-ash-pits-contaminating-texas-groundwater-report-idUSKCN1PB2HB" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/texas-coal-ash-polluting-groundwater-f304c328c1cc/" target="_blank">ThinkProgress</a>, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/study-finds-toxins-leaking-into-texas-groundwater/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</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
- New Report Reveals Severe Groundwater Contamination at Illinois ... ›
- Coal Ash Was a Disaster in North Carolina Well Before Hurricane ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Wind farms dominate the landscape in West Texas. Robert Coy / EyeEm / Getty Images
By Jeff Turrentine
During the 2016 campaign and in various postelection rallies, President Trump promised to save America's flagging coal industry and put the nation's coal miners "back to work." While Trump continues to labor under the delusion that easing emissions standards will somehow resuscitate the coal industry, his administration's own numbers tell a different story. In fact, more U.S. coal plants have been deactivated in the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency than were taken offline during President Obama's entire first term. Domestic coal use in 2018 was also the lowest it's been since Jimmy Carter was in office.
<p>Cheap natural gas is one reason for coal's demise, but the more interesting—and much more important—part of the story is the role that renewables, specifically wind and solar, are playing in the protracted fade-out of our dirtiest fuel. As for job creation, the <a href="https://www.usenergyjobs.org/" target="_blank">2018 <em>U.S. Energy and</em> <em>Employment Report</em></a> found that there are three times as many Americans now working in clean energy jobs as there are in the fossil fuel industry. For quite some time, conventional wisdom has held that renewables <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/06/21/does-coal-stand-a-chance-against-renewable-energy/#74c1170f3686" target="_blank">pose a serious threat</a> to the future of coal. Now it seems clear the future has arrived.</p><p>Just ask the people in my home state of Texas, of all places. In a <a href="https://jrenewables.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-018-0054-3" target="_blank">just-published report</a>, scientists at Rice University in Houston conclude that the state could quit coal cold-turkey today and still have energy to spare—all thanks to recent advances in renewables. As one of the coauthors told the <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-has-enough-sun-and-wind-to-quit-coal-Rice-13501700.php?utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle</a>, "There is nowhere else in the world better positioned to operate without coal than Texas is. Wind and solar are easily capable of picking up the slack."</p><p>The authors acknowledge that Texas is uniquely equipped to be in this enviable position. Ample winds along its Gulf Coast and in its western plains have helped make Texas the country's <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-wind-generation-keeps-growing-state-13178629.php" target="_blank">largest producer of wind energy</a>. And its famed size and sunshine have made it <a href="https://www.citiesservedbyoncor.org/blog-texas-solar-growth-2nd-in-nation/" target="_blank">one of the fastest-growing states</a> in terms of solar capacity, which industry <a href="https://www.treia.org/news/2018/6/22/solar-power-capacity-in-texas-expected-to-double-making-life-tougher-for-power-companies" target="_blank">analysts predict</a> will reach 3,000 megawatts next year—up from just 15 megawatts in 2010.</p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b44604120534d62e2145ac9f3434aee3"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/nrdc.org/videos/382285145648169/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div>
<p><br></p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2a5d3e1caedff7114e191c6bc0369a70"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/nrdc.org/videos/262598381099417/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div>
<p>Where does all of this progress leave coal? Out in the cold. The state's coal-fired power plants are <a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/09/17/much-texas-dropped-reliance-coal-surprised" target="_blank">shutting down or being seasonally mothballed</a> at rates never witnessed before. And according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which provides electric power to more than 23 million Texans, future energy projects in the state are trending—mightily—in favor of wind and solar. <a href="https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/08/23/us-86-of-texas-future-capacity-will-comprise-solar-or-wind-zero-coal/" target="_blank">One recent chart</a> released by the consortium predicts that these two renewables will generate 86 percent of the megawattage of those future projects. How much coal is in that queue? Precisely 0 percent.<br></p><p>Texas isn't jumping on the renewables bandwagon out of some official commitment to curb climate change, or because it's suddenly turned its back on the fossil fuel industry that <a href="http://permicoroyalties.com/blog/oil-and-gas-in-texas-how-it-changed-our-way-of-life/" target="_blank">helped make it</a> an international economic powerhouse. Texas is joining the club for the same reason that so many other states are joining: It makes sound economic sense. As Dan Cohan, one of the Rice study's coauthors, puts it, "It's the cheapest way to do things, whether or not you care about the environment." The new year brought with it a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/utilities-speed-up-closure-of-coal-fired-power-plants-11547035201?mod=e2tw" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/utilities-speed-up-closure-of-coal-fired-power-plants-11547035201?mod=e2tw" target="_blank"> story</a> that pithily sums up where things are headed nationally. Under the headline <em>Utilities Speed Up Closure of Coal-Fired Power Plants</em>, the article traces the phenomenon in large part to the "more economic alternatives" now provided by wind and solar.</p><p>As environmentalists, we'd love for governments, utilities and energy companies to put climate and air quality at the very top of their priority lists. Happily, more and more are doing just that. But as pragmatists, we should acknowledge that money, in the form of savings and/or profits, is going to be the determining factor in the growth of renewables. The good news is that climate advocacy and renewable technology have combined in such a way as to take the still-young clean energy sector to the next level. As it gets bigger, its products and its infrastructure will get cheaper. And as they get cheaper, dirty coal will look more and more like a loser—even to those who were perfectly fine with it before.</p><p>Here's the thing: As disingenuous as President Trump has shown himself to be, I do believe he's sincere in his desire to save the coal industry, even if it's just to shore up votes in Appalachian swing states and appease the corporate fat cats to whom he's indebted.</p><p>The only problem? He can't do it. It's too late.</p><p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/wind-and-solar-are-final-nails-coals-coffin" target="_blank">onEarth</a>.</em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Produced water from gas drilling in the Marcellus shale. Tara Lohan
By Tara Lohan
We're living beyond our means when it comes to groundwater. That's probably not news to everyone, but new research suggests that, deep underground in a number of key aquifers in some parts of the U.S., we may have much less water than previously thought.
"We found that the average depth of water resources across the country was about half of what people had previously estimated," said Jennifer McIntosh, a distinguished scholar and professor of hydrology and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona.
<p>McIntosh and her colleagues—who published a <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae6d8/meta" target="_blank">new study</a> about these aquifers in November in <em>Environmental Research Letters—</em>took a different approach to assessing groundwater than other research, which has <a href="https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/applications/groundwater/" target="_blank">used satellites</a> to measure changes in groundwater storage. For example, a <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015WR017349" target="_blank">2015 study</a> looked at 37 major aquifers across the world and found some were being depleted faster than they were being replenished, including in California's agriculturally intensive Central Valley.</p><p>McIntosh says those previous studies revealed a lot about how we're depleting water resources from the top down through extraction, such as pumping for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">agriculture</a> and water supplies, especially in places like California.</p><p>But McIntosh and three other researchers wanted to look at groundwater from a different perspective: They examined how we're using water resources from the bottom up.</p><p>The study may help close the gap about what we know and don't know regarding how much water is available deep underground, as well as its quality.</p><p>It also rings some alarm bells.</p><h2>A Different Approach</h2><p>Instead of examining how fast water tables were falling, as in previous studies, the researchers looked at water chemistry to determine how deep underground you could drill for freshwater or brackish water before that water became too salty to use.</p><p>"We looked at the bottom limit of groundwater resources," said McIntosh.</p><p>The researchers used information from the U.S. Geological Survey on the quality of groundwater across the country and looked specifically at salinity—how salty the water is. "We looked basin by basin at how that depth of fresh and brackish water changes across the United States," said McIntosh.</p><p>The results were about half as much usable water as previous estimates. That means that deep groundwater reserves are not nearly as plentiful as we'd thought in some places.</p><p>That's important because when shallow groundwater reserves become depleted or polluted, the strategy so far has been to drill deeper and deeper wells to keep the water flowing.</p><p>But we may not always be able to drill our way out of water shortages. "Tapping into these deep waters works for now, but the long-term prospects for using these waters are quite concerning," said the report's lead author, <a href="https://www.usask.ca/water/about/profiles/people/grant-ferguson.php" target="_blank">Grant Ferguson</a>, an associate professor in the department of Civil and Geological Engineering at the University of Saskatchewan.</p><p>The problem isn't evenly distributed across the country. While a number of aquifers in the West have deep freshwater reserves, the water in parts of the eastern and central U.S. becomes salty at much shallower depths. "Drilling deeper water wells to address groundwater depletion issues represents no more than a stopgap measure in these areas," the researchers concluded in their paper. One area of particular concern the researchers noted was in the Anadarko and Sedgwick basins underlying parts of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, which has particularly shallow freshwater reserves.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA4NTMwMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTY3NDI1OX0.1hRXCMwTh5LNWxenwTgxkUtSnvsKF4piq2hWCexqGpw/img.jpg?width=980" id="814bf" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1c96c3e74348404bebd73ad293444387" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Depth to water with total dissolved solids (a) <3000 and (b) <10 000 mg l−1 based on median values in 100 m bins. (c) TDS distribution relative to the 50th and 95th percentile of water well depths</small></p><h2>Oil and Water<br></h2><p>The study looked at a total of 28 sedimentary basins across the U.S. that were chosen because they're known to contain oil and gas reserves.</p><p>The researchers found that the oil and gas industry uses fresh and brackish water, both of which are drawn from the bottom up. And that's another element of the research that could raise concern.</p><p>In some cases the industry pumps out brackish water as part of its drilling operations. Industry waste is then injected back underground into deep aquifers. As a result, water reserves are depleted from pumping and possibly contaminated during re-injection, the researchers found.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA4NTMwMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTE1MzI1MX0.GzKF-FX4rccOvkqWOdcUe3wSVKPEC38p6G4s8bHmXaQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="884c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="faf292e10b4f91901e815a3c4c1bd9a1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Deep groundwater resources can be threatened by oil and gas production or injection wells.</small></p><p>The depth between oil and gas activities and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> reserves varied greatly across the country. Wyoming and the Michigan basin were two places where oil and gas activities are relatively shallow and in close proximity to fresh and brackish water, which could increase the chances of contamination of water resources. Water contamination from <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032016/fracking-study-pavillion-wyoming-drinking-water-contamination-epa" target="_blank">oil and gas activity</a> has already been documented in Pavillion, Wyoming.<br></p><p>The authors suggest that carefully monitoring for potential contamination or overexploitation of water reserves may be crucial in these areas with minimal separation between groundwater and oil and gas wells used for either production or disposal.</p><h2>The Future Is … Saltier </h2><p>While brackish water can be used for some types of agriculture and by oil and gas activities, it hasn't been used much yet for drinking because it requires desalination (although not as intensively as seawater). But as water resources become more constrained, particularly in the arid West where some communities and farms rely exclusively on groundwater, brackish water may be a more valuable future resource and a larger part of the water supply.</p><p>"I think of it in terms of water security. Both fresh and brackish aquifers are part of our potential water source into the future," said McIntosh.</p><p>But further utilizing these deep-water resources will have "all kinds of policy and economic consequences because they aren't going to be replenished as quickly as other waters" closer to the surface, said Ferguson. And that may mean better monitoring of oil and gas activity is needed in those regions, along with a possible rethinking of how we permit and manage drilling into those deep waters. "That would change the nature of how we're using water in a lot of places," he said.</p><p>While this research adds to our growing knowledge of groundwater resources, there is still a lot we don't know about the chemistry of these deep aquifers beyond just salinity, said McIntosh. Addressing that knowledge gap, she said, will be important as we work to match water resources to our varying needs for drinking, industry and agriculture.</p><p>"This 'bottom up' approach is a novel one and will find great utility, but it does depend upon the availability of deep groundwater data," said <a href="https://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwired/" target="_blank">Michael Campana</a>, a professor and hydrogeologist at Oregon State University who did not participate in the study. And the deeper we go, the less data we have, said Ferguson.</p><p>Both the researchers and outside experts suggest that more research is needed. This is particularly true in areas not associated with oil and gas activity that weren't part of the study, Campana points out. But the authors say their results may still show the need for important changes on policy or behavioral levels regarding how we use our nation's groundwater.</p><p>"There was this idea that deeper groundwater would be more pristine, and it is to a point, but there are all kinds of natural salinity and hydrocarbon problems once you get into deeper and deeper groundwater systems," said Ferguson. "So we're working with that idea that maybe the window of freshwater is not as big as we thought and it's probably getting even smaller in a lot of areas."</p><p>In an age of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>, that's something that may play out sooner rather than later.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d7408" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SCBYAH1576779568"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1058448717865455619" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">An Aquifer From the #IceAge Becomes a Battleground in New Mexico https://t.co/Sco9rnOlqA @greenpeaceusa @Sierra_Magazine</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1058448717865455619">1541188814.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Tara Lohan is deputy editor of The Revelator.</em><br></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://therevelator.org/shrinking-groundwater/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Wind farm with solar panels in southern California. 4kodiak / E+ / Getty Images
By Jeff Deyette
Despite the Trump administration's ongoing attempts to prop up coal and undermine renewables—at FERC, EPA and through tariffs and the budget process—2018 should instead be remembered for the surge in momentum toward a clean energy economy. Here are nine storylines that caught my attention this past year and help illustrate the unstoppable advancement of renewable energy and other modern grid technologies.
<h3>1. California Goes All-In for Carbon-Free Electricity</h3><p>In late August, California—the world's 5th largest economy—committed to the target of fully decarbonizing its power sector by 2045. The <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/california_cements_climate_leadership" target="_blank">landmark legislation</a> also strengthens the state's renewable portfolio standard (also known as a renewable energy standard, or RES) from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. What's more, at the bill signing, Governor Jerry Brown signed an <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/adrienne-alvord/even-more-than-100-clean-californias-audacious-net-zero-carbon-challenge" target="_blank">executive order</a> that establishes a goal of achieving carbon-neutrality across all sectors of California's sprawling economy by 2045, cementing the state's place as a global leader in climate action.</p><h3>2. Several States Strengthen Their RES Requirements</h3><p>State-level renewable electricity standards continued to be a primary driver of new renewable energy development in 2018. In addition to California, legislatures in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/nyregion/new-jersey-renewable-energy.html" target="_blank">New Jersey</a> (50 percent by 2030), <a href="https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?Q=603448&A=4965" target="_blank">Connecticut</a> (40 percent by 2030) and <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/massachusetts-2018-clean-energy-bill" target="_blank">Massachusetts</a> (35 percent by 2030) all adopted stronger targets for renewable energy, accelerating their states' transitions away from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a>. In addition, voters in <a href="https://www.renewableenergyoutlook.com/2018/11/15/nevada-voters-approve-50-renewable-portfolio-standard-by-2030/" target="_blank">Nevada</a> overwhelmingly approved a measure to increase their state's RES to 50 percent by 2030 (the measure must be approved again in 2020 to officially become law).</p><h3>3. Clean Energy Champions Win Gubernatorial Races</h3><p>One of the bright spots in November's election results was the number newly elected governors who campaigned on aggressive clean energy and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a> agendas. Newly elected governors in at least 10 states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin, have pledged to accelerate clean energy and carbon reductions in their states by supporting U.S. commitments to the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a>, joining the <a href="https://www.usclimatealliance.org/" target="_blank">U.S. Climate Alliance</a> and/or calling for renewable energy targets of 80 to 100 percent. These election results demonstrate the widespread support for greater investments in renewable energy and signal the push for even stronger clean energy policies in the coming year.</p><h3>4. Record Low Prices for Renewables</h3><p>Innovation, growing economies of scale and attractive financing continued to drive the costs down for renewables in 2018. Power purchase agreements for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind">wind</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar">solar</a> projects in states like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas have reportedly ranged between $20 to $30 per megawatt-hour, well below the cost of natural gas generation—and the technologies are positioned for further cost reductions to continue to be low-cost options even as federal tax incentives change. What's even more exciting is that the many of these low-priced projects also include energy storage components, increasing their value to the grid.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA0NTI4Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MjgyNzU1Mn0.bI6IPqCaQ5lv0mfn_9olwTo7DYY7JmCQBif5_Z4oFTc/img.jpg?width=980" id="39255" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4a938f5634f4bb6b30e00b8c7bcad51b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<h3>5. Major Utilities Commit to Low-Carbon Portfolios</h3><p>Earlier this month, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/joseph-daniel/xcel-commits-to-100-carbon-free-energy" target="_blank">Xcel Energy</a> became the first major utility to commit to a completely carbon-free electricity supply across the eight states it operates in. In doing so, it joins a <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/jeremy-richardson/utilities-look-toward-a-clean-energy-future-yet-the-administration-keeps-looking-back" target="_blank">growing number of utilities</a> that are committing to phasing out their use of coal and transitioning to substantially lower carbon energy portfolios. Also this year, both <a href="https://www.apnews.com/f876e5b74bc941fcadea30a99760aa59" target="_blank">Consumers Energy</a> in Michigan and <a href="https://nawindpower.com/indianas-nipsco-plots-coal-phaseout-transition-to-renewables" target="_blank">NIPSCO</a> in northern Indiana announced plans to phase out coal generation and utility giant <a href="https://www.powermag.com/aep-american-power-giant-sets-goal-to-slash-carbon-emissions-80-by-2050/" target="_blank">American Electric Power</a> announced a goal of reducing its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. What's especially exciting about these utility actions is that they are <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/sam-gomberg/trump-clean-energy" target="_blank">driven primarily by economics</a>, clearly demonstrating the competitiveness of clean energy technologies.</p><h3>6. Corporate Renewable Energy Purchases Keep Growing</h3><p>Low renewable energy prices continue to attract major corporations looking to save money and achieve ambitious <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability">sustainability</a> goals. As a result, direct corporate purchases of renewable energy have become a major driver of renewable energy deployment. In 2018, the Rocky Mountain Institute <a href="https://rmi.org/press-release/corporate-renewable-energy-procurement-continues-to-break-records-in-2018/" target="_blank">reports,</a> corporate renewable energy purchases—led by companies like Facebook, Walmart, ATT and Microsoft—reached more than 6.4 gigawatts (GW). The <a href="https://www.rmi.org/our-work/electricity/brc-business-renewables-center/" target="_blank">number of corporations</a> investing in renewables expanded at a record pace this year as well, with nearly two-thirds of Fortune 100 and nearly half of Fortune 500 companies now having set ambitious renewable energy goals.</p><h3>7. Offshore Wind Moves Forward</h3>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA0NTM3Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTIzNDE0N30.RlIl9Xnj7vZN7eXZ1QHJBJ4L53CBh31jzs7OBcTRPuQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="75b83" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0d7ba97e1e4be27bc1bcb37140ad7ada" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Kim Hansen / Wikimedia Commons</small></p>
<p>While no new <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/offshore-wind">offshore wind</a> projects came online in the U.S. this year (the next project—off the Virginia coast—is scheduled for 2020), the industry did take some big leaps toward becoming a major player in the nation's power supply. For example, the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/low-price-offshore-wind-massachusetts" target="_blank">winning bid</a> for Massachusetts' first request for offshore wind proposals to help meet the state's offshore wind requirements passed in 2016 went to an 800-megawatt project from Vineyard Wind at a shockingly low price of about 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. In addition, the latest U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/auction-sets-america-on-course-for-offshore-wind" target="_blank">auction</a> for leasing parcels of water for future projects resulted in 11 bidders and $405.1 million in winning bids, both smashing previous records. And strong state policies, including <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/offshore-wind-massachusetts-rhode-island-new-jersey" target="_blank">new offshore wind requirements in New Jersey</a> and elsewhere, mean that there's a lot more action to come.</p><h3>8. Storage Steps Into the Spotlight</h3>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTA0NTM4NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNTAwNTg5N30.omEye9FYOO3TjOiWQPO-XImBKe0VJ1zpdcEeUfHDWW4/img.jpg?width=980" id="7f379" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7046e6104690287c1e001ebc573fbec9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Lithium-ion batteries for advanced energy storage</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Argonne National Laboratory / Flickr</small></p>
<p>Once a fringe player in the electric power sector, the energy storage industry is quickly emerging as a game changer in the transition to a clean energy economy as a tool for integrating much higher levels of renewable energy. In 2018, the pipeline for new storage projects doubled to nearly 33 GW as more utilities are investing in the technology thanks largely <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/" target="_blank">rapidly falling prices</a> and growing support from state policies. While California has led the nation in storage deployment to date, <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-york-psc-sets-states-energy-storage-target-at-3-gw-by-2030/544371/" target="_blank">New York</a> recently established the strongest storage requirement in the country at 3,000 MW by 2030. Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-jersey-sets-aggressive-target-2-gw-by-2030-for-energy-storage/524422/" target="_blank">New Jersey</a> set an ambitious storage target of 2,000 MW by 2030 and <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/massachusetts-2018-clean-energy-bill" target="_blank">Massachusetts</a> significantly increased its storage requirement to 1,000 megawatt-hours by 2025. At the federal level, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-order-opens-floodgates-for-energy-storage-in-wholesale-markets/517326/" target="_blank">Order 841</a>, which directs regional grid operators to set market rules that allow energy storage to participate on a level playing field in the wholesale energy, capacity and <a href="https://www.logicenergy.com/what-are-ancillary-services-and-why-do-power-grids-need-them/" target="_blank">ancillary services</a> markets.</p><h3>9. PG&E Turns Down the Gas With Storage and Renewables</h3><p>In one particular sign of what's to come in 2019 and beyond in terms of how these technologies fit together to displace fossil fuels, one of the most exciting <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/storage-will-replace-3-california-gas-plants-as-pge-nabs-approval-for-worl/541870/" target="_blank">regulatory decisions</a> I saw this year was the California Public Utility Commission's approval of PG&E's plan to use energy storage to replace retiring gas generators. One of the key barriers to fully transitioning to a carbon-free economy is replacing natural gas generation and the ancillary services they provide to the power grid. This decision, which marks the first time a utility will directly replace power plants with <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/battery-storage/">battery storage</a>, should spur <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/ca-and-western-states/turning-down-gas" target="_blank">many more similar projects</a> to move forward in California and across the country and open the door for integrating much higher levels of renewable energy onto the power grid.</p><p>These nine stories are just a sampling of what occurred in 2018 to further the clean energy transition. As the year comes to a close, UCS will continue to work hard to keep up the clean energy momentum in 2019.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="5dfb0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EBO0FK1576662462"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="952909011506139136" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">All Renewables Will Be Cost Competitive With Fossil Fuels by 2020 https://t.co/QectZLGqOF #renewables @350… https://t.co/9rc89HJlCz</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/952909011506139136">1516026187.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Jeff Deyette is the director of state policy and analysis at the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/jeff-deyette/9-clean-energy-stories-from-2018" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
32 fracking companies in the U.S. are running a deficit of nearly $1 billion. grandriver / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Justin Mikulka
2018 was the year the oil and gas industry promised that its darling, the shale fracking revolution, would stop focusing on endless production and instead turn a profit for its investors. But as the year winds to a close, it's clear that hasn't happened.
Instead, the fracking industry has helped set new records for U.S. oil production while continuing to lose huge amounts of money—and that was before the recent crash in oil prices.
<p>But plenty of people in the industry and media make it sound like a much different, and more profitable, story.</p><p><strong>Broken Promises and Record Production</strong></p><p>Going into this year, the fracking industry needed to prove it was a good investment (and not just for its CEOs, who are garnering <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/29/flip-well-fracking-shale-halcon-resources-floyd-wilson" target="_blank">massive paychecks</a>).</p><p>In January, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/frackers-could-make-more-money-than-ever-in-2018-if-they-dont-blow-it-1516536000" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal touted the prospect</a> of frackers finally making "real money … for the first time" this year. "Shale drillers are heeding growing calls from investors who have chastened the companies for pumping ever more oil and gas even as they incur losses doing so," oil and energy reporter Bradley Olson wrote.</p><p>Olson's story quoted an energy asset manager making the (always) ill-fated prediction about the oil and gas industry that <em>this time will be different.</em></p><p>"Is this time going to be different? I think yes, a little bit," said energy asset manager Will Riley. "Companies will look to increase growth a little, but at a more moderate pace."</p><p>Despite this early optimism, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/permian-pitfalls-world-s-hottest-oil-field-also-carries-risks" target="_blank">Bloomberg noted in February</a> that even the Permian Basin—"America's hottest oilfield"—faced "hidden pitfalls" that could "hamstring" the industry.</p><p>They were right. Those pitfalls turned out to be the ugly reality of the fracking industry's finances.</p><p>And this time was not different.</p><p>On the edge of the Permian in New Mexico, the <a href="https://www.abqjournal.com/1250300/permian-booming-but-uncertainty-begins-to-surface-2.html" target="_blank">Albuquerque Journal</a> reported the industry is "on pace this year to leap past last year's record oil production," according to Ryan Flynn, executive director of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association. And yet that oil has at times been discounted as much as <a href="https://www.abqjournal.com/1250300/permian-booming-but-uncertainty-begins-to-surface-2.html" target="_blank">$20 a barrel</a> compared to world oil prices because New Mexico doesn't have the infrastructure to move all of it.</p><p>Who would be foolish enough to produce more oil than the existing infrastructure could handle in a year when the industry promised restraint and a focus on profits? New Mexico, for one. And North Dakota. And Texas.</p><p>In North Dakota, record oil production resulted <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-crude-bakken/bakken-oil-flows-pressure-gulf-coast-crude-grade-prices-idUSL2N1XV0X0" target="_blank">in discounts of $15 per barrel and above</a> due to infrastructure constraints.</p><p>Texas is experiencing a similar story. Oilprice.com cites a <a href="https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Permian-Discount-Could-Rise-To-20-Per-Barrel.html" target="_blank">Goldman Sachs</a> prediction of discounts "around $19-$22 per [barrel]" for the fourth quarter of 2018 and through the first three quarters of next year.</p><p>Oil producers in fracking fields across the country seem to have resisted the urge to reign in production and instead produced record volumes of oil in 2018. In the process—much like the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/25/canadian-tar-sands-oil-financial-losses" target="_blank">tar sands industry in Canada</a>—they have created a situation where the market devalues their oil. Unsurprisingly, this is not a recipe for profits.</p><p><strong>Shale Oil Industry 'More Profitable Than Ever' — Or Is It?</strong></p><p>However, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-shale/u-s-shale-surge-boosts-industry-finances-puts-deals-in-spotlight-idUSKCN1NK2OT" target="_blank">Reuters</a> recently analyzed 32 fracking companies and declared that "U.S. shale firms are more profitable than ever after a strong third quarter." How is this possible?</p><p>Reading a bit further reveals what Reuters considers "profits."</p><p>"The group's cash flow deficit has narrowed to $945 million as U.S. benchmark crude hit $70 a barrel and production soared," reported Reuters.</p><p>So, "more profitable than ever" means that those 32 companies are running a deficit of nearly $1 billion. That does not meet the accepted <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit.asp" target="_blank">definition of profit.</a></p><p><span></span>A <a href="https://www.sightline.org/2018/12/05/nine-year-losing-streak-continues-for-us-fracking-sector/" target="_blank">separate analysis</a> released earlier this month by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and The Sightline Institute also reviewed 32 companies in the fracking industry and reached the same conclusion: "The 32 mid-size <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> exploration companies included in this review reported nearly $1 billion in negative cash flows through September."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="47fa3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="63WGUM1576662655"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1071903451573940224" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NINE-YEAR LOSING STREAK CONTINUES FOR US FRACKING SECTOR
Oil and gas output is rising but cash losses keep flowing… https://t.co/hKBSk8v5rV</div> — 💧Carly Woodstock (@💧Carly Woodstock)<a href="https://twitter.com/stopthefrack/statuses/1071903451573940224">1544396672.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>The numbers don't lie. Despite the highest oil prices in years and record amounts of oil production, the fracking industry continued to spend more than it made in 2018. And somehow, smaller industry losses can still be interpreted as being "more profitable than ever."<br></p><p><strong>The Fracking Industry's Fuzzy Math</strong></p><p>One practice the fracking industry uses to obfuscate its long money-losing streak is to change the goal posts for what it means to be profitable. <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-fracking-profits-at-50-a-barrel-dont-bet-on-it-1543919401" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted</a> this practice, writing: "Claims of low 'break-even' prices for shale drilling hardly square with frackers' bottom lines."</p><p>The industry likes to talk about <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shale-kemp/u-s-shale-breakeven-price-revealed-around-50-kemp-idUSKBN1AP25M" target="_blank">low "break-even" numbers</a> and how individual wells are profitable—but somehow the companies themselves keep losing money. This can lead to statements like this one from Chris Duncan, an energy analyst at Brandes Investment Partners:</p><blockquote>"You always scratch your head as to how they can have these well economics that can have double-digit returns on investment, but it never flows through to the total company return." </blockquote><p>Head-scratching, indeed.</p><p>The explanation is pretty simple: Shale companies are not counting many of their operating expenses in the "break-even" calculations. Convenient for them, but highly misleading about the economics of fracking because factoring in the costs of running one of these companies often leads those so-called profits from the black and into the red.</p><p>The Wall Street Journal explains the flaw in the fracking industry's questionable break-even claims: "break-evens generally exclude such key costs as land, overhead and even at times transportation."</p><p>Other tricks, The Wall Street Journal notes, include companies only claiming the break-even prices of their most profitable land (known in the industry as "sweet spots") or using artificially low costs for drilling contractors and oil service companies.</p><p>While the mystery of fracking industry finances appears to be solved, the mystery of why oil companies are allowed to make such misleading claims remains.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="53891" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OIOOID1576662655"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1055190252392919040" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The US shale / fracking formula... 1.) borrow billions at low interest rates 2.) lose money forcing oil & gas from… https://t.co/FSuGXzcKN5</div> — Ryan Popple (@Ryan Popple)<a href="https://twitter.com/rcpopple/statuses/1055190252392919040">1540411935.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><strong>Wall Street Continues to Fund an Unsustainable Business Model<br></strong></p><p>Why does the fracking industry continue to receive more investments from Wall Street despite breaking its "promises" this year?</p><p>Because that is how <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/04/wall-street-shale-oil-fracking-revolution-losing-billions-continental-resources" target="_blank">Wall Street makes money</a>. Whether fracking companies are profitable or not doesn't really matter to Wall Street executives who are getting rich making the loans that the fracking industry struggles to repay.</p><p>An excellent example of this is the risk that <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-interest-rates-may-trip-oil-companies-1493803802" target="_blank">rising interest rates pose</a> to the fracking industry. Even shale companies that have made profits occasionally have done so while also <a href="https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/energy/nyse-clr/continental-resources/news/how-financially-strong-is-continental-resources-inc-nyseclr/" target="_blank">amassing large debts</a>. As interest rates rise, those companies will have to borrow at higher rates, which increases operating costs and decreases the likelihood that shale companies losing cash will ever pay back that debt.</p><p>Continental Resources, one of the largest fracking companies, is often touted as an excellent investment. Investor's Business Daily <a href="https://www.investors.com/stock-lists/stock-spotlight/top-stock-continental-resources-buy-point/" target="_blank">recently noted</a> that "[w]ithin the Oil & Gas-U.S. Exploration & Production industry, Continental is the fourth-ranked stock with a strong 98 out of a highest-possible 99 [Investor's Business Daily] Composite Rating."</p><p>And yet when <a href="https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/energy/nyse-clr/continental-resources/news/how-financially-strong-is-continental-resources-inc-nyseclr/" target="_blank">Simply Wall St.</a> analyzed the company's ability to pay back its over $6 billion in debt, the stock market news site concluded that Continental isn't well positioned to repay that debt. However, it noted "[t]he sheer size of Continental Resources means it is unlikely to default or announce bankruptcy anytime soon." For frackers, being at the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">top of the industry</a> apparently means being too big to fail.</p><p>As interest rates rise, common sense might suggest that Wall Street would rein in its lending to shale companies. But when has common sense applied to Wall Street?</p><p>Even the Houston Chronicle, a major paper near the center of <a href="https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/industrial/crane-served-manufacturing-buildings-in-high-demand-as-oil-industry-rebounds-92882" target="_blank">the fracking boom,</a> recently asked, "<a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/How-long-can-the-fracking-spending-spree-last-13228180.php" target="_blank">How long can the fracking spending spree last?</a>"</p><p>The Chronicle notes the epic money-losing streak for the industry and how fracking bankruptcies have already ended up "stiffing lenders and investors on more than $70 billion in outstanding loans."</p><p>So, is the party over?</p><p>Not according to Katherine Spector, <a href="https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/katherine-spector" target="_blank">a research scholar</a> at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. She explains how Wall Street will reconcile investing in these fracking firms during a period of higher interest rates: "Banks are going to make more money [through higher interest rates], so they're going to want to get more money out the door."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="41917" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0OHKTY1576662655"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="993668076460797953" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">How Wall Street Enabled the Fracking 'Revolution' That's Losing Billions https://t.co/oSsJmEiAa7 @FrackAction @foodandwater</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/993668076460797953">1525743905.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/12/18/fracking-finances-record-oil-production-fuzzy-math" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em><br></p><p><em>Follow the DeSmog investigative series: </em><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/finances-fracking-shale-industry-drills-more-debt-profit" target="_blank"><em>Finances of Fracking: Shale Industry Drills More Debt Than Profit</em></a></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
With her win, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became one of four Democrats heading to Congress to push for a Green New Deal. Rick Loomis / Getty Images
Results from the U.S. midterm election are mostly in, and, when it comes to what they mean for the environment, they're a real mixed bag.
<p>On the plus side, the Democrats took the House of Representatives, which, as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067264" target="_blank">BBC News pointed out</a>, means that President <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> can't pass any more major legislation without their approval. Since big legislative pushes in the Republican controlled House over the past two years included an <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/endangered-species-act-republicans-2586332924.html" target="_self">attack</a> on the Endangered Species Act and a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/farm-bill-anti-environment-policy-riders-2582389975.html" target="_self">Farm Bill</a> that would have limited controls on toxic pesticides and water pollution, this can only be an improvement.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="b3823" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KYY06Z1576662090"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1060089995078365185" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The latest US election results: Democrats have won their 218th House seat, securing their majority and setting up a… https://t.co/xEe718OY0x</div> — Financial Times (@Financial Times)<a href="https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/statuses/1060089995078365185">1541580125.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>On the minus side, the Republicans increased their majority in the Senate. Since the Senate is the body that confirms all of the president's judicial and political appointments, there will still be nothing blocking Trump from appointing more judges like Brett Kavanaugh with a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/kavanaughs-environmental-record-2610220986.html" target="_self">dubious environmental record</a>. They will also be able to sign off on whoever Trump finally chooses as <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_blank">Scott Pruitt</a>'s permanent replacement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>). The House is more likely now to investigate corruption-prone, industry-friendly Interior Secretary <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ryan-zinke" target="_self">Ryan Zinke</a>, but the Senate could go right ahead and confirm a replacement equally likely to sell out <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands" target="_self">public lands</a> to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> interests.<br></p><p>When it comes to the environmental implications of individual races and ballot measures, the night was about equally full of gains and losses. But it's important to remember that no matter who wins, popular movements can always make a difference. So whether your favorite candidate won or lost last night, you can and should continue fighting to halt <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a> and ensure a healthy, thriving environment for all life on earth.</p><p>That said, here are a few of the key takeaways from last night.</p><p><strong>1. Big Oil's Big Spending Paid Off</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-proxy-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vbWVkaWEucmJsLm1zL2ltYWdlP3U9JTJGbWVkaWElMkZEclgyeUV4VkFBRW11elouanBnJTNBbWVkaXVtJmhvPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGcGJzLnR3aW1nLmNvbSZzPTk0NiZoPWZmNDVhMjg3MzRhYThlNjZlYjMwOWVlODhmMzQzNjhjZTFmYzMxYmIwNjI1MDk1YzBiNDA5YmQxYzY2Njc4ZjMmc2l6ZT05ODB4JmM9OTQ1MTk3NjY0IiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODA0Mjk5OX0.-X-2nrVyWzI_WcIkEf99DusQZiOaUCPuc3ZKiXmQQ2g/img.jpg" id="ddafc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7a0e4dd5257c851e2194534ee7509b14">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A graphic showing the results of Washington state's voting on I-1631</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrX2yExVAAEmuzZ.jpg:large" target="_blank">pbs.twimg.com</a>
</small>
</p><p>Probably the most disappointing result from a climate change perspective is the fact that Washington's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/washington-carbon-tax-big-oil-2616808725.html" target="_self">Initiative 1631</a>, which would have created the nation's first fee on carbon emissions, was defeated in the polls. Colorado's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/colorado-fracking-homes-2608344422.html" target="_self">Proposition 112</a>, which would have banned oil and gas drilling on 85 percent of the state's land, also failed. The fossil fuel industry put more than $73 million into defeating the two initiatives, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/green-new-deal-progressive-democrats_us_5be26f5be4b0769d24c6a954" target="_blank">the Huffington Post reported</a>, so in this case money power was sadly stronger than people power.<br></p><p>In terms of the other ballot measures <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/environmental-ballot-measures-to-watch-2618270364.html" target="_self">EcoWatch was tracking</a>, Arizona's Proposition 127, which would have upped the state's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" target="_self">renewable energy</a> target to 50 percent by 2030, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_127,_Renewable_Energy_Standards_Initiative_(2018)" target="_blank">was also defeated</a>, as <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_1,_Salmon_Habitat_Protections_and_Permits_Initiative_(2018)" target="_blank">was Alaska's Ballot Measure 1</a>, which would have imposed new restrictions on projects that threaten <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/salmon" target="_self">salmon</a> habitat. Florida's unusual Amendment 9, banning both <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/offshore-oil-drilling" target="_self">offshore oil drilling</a> and indoor vaping, was the <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_9,_Ban_Offshore_Oil_and_Gas_Drilling_and_Ban_Vaping_in_Enclosed_Indoor_Workplaces_Amendment_(2018)" target="_blank">only one to succeed</a>. </p><p><strong>2. Climate Change Tipping Point</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="e05e7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OOHBCD1576662090"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1060004940414926848" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Carlos Curbelo didn't lose, @DebbieforFL won.
This race was fought on climate change and won on climate change.
T… https://t.co/hc6DMi0XSc</div> — Eric Holthaus (@Eric Holthaus)<a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/statuses/1060004940414926848">1541559846.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>Climate change was also a campaign issue in several key races, and, while it's hard to pinpoint what issue tipped a candidate over the edge to victory, there were some wins where it might have made a difference.<br></p><p>Before the election, <a href="https://grist.org/article/midterms-2018-climate-election-map/" target="_blank">Grist</a> assembled an analysis of five hotly contested races in districts where more than two-thirds of residents were worried about climate change. Turns out, all of the Democrats in those races won or are currently leading in the polls, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Anti-pipeline and offshore drilling Democrat Tom Malinowski beat Republican incumbent Leonard Lance in New Jersey's seventh district.</li><li>Democrat Colin Allred, who wants to rejoin the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a>, defeated incumbent Republican Pete Sessions, who wants to scale back the EPA. This is in Texas' 32nd district, which saw unusually deadly storms and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding" target="_self">flooding</a> this fall. </li><li>Also in Texas, Republican incumbent John Culberson lost to Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher in the seventh district that includes parts of Houston deeply impacted by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricane-harvey" target="_self">Hurricane Harvey</a> last year. </li><li>Florida's 26th district is its southernmost point, already grappling with tidal flooding due to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" target="_self">sea level rise</a>. Republican incumbent Carlos Curbelo <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gop-new-carbon-tax-bill-2590411558.html" target="_blank">was not a climate denier</a>, and in fact founded the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. But Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell promised more environmental action and won.</li><li>The race between Republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher and Democratic challenger Harley Rouda for California's 48th district, which includes parts of coastal Orange County at risk from sea level rise, is still too close to call. But Rouda, who opposed offshore oil drilling and promised clean energy, is leading. </li></ul><p><strong>3. Rise of the Green New Deal:</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="074dea21725eace9c13bc3895d6fd7d7"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zcQZtpbgVoY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">The Green New Deal: fixing climate and the economy?</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcQZtpbgVoY" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p>The brightest glimmer of hope to come out of the midterms is the fact that there are now four Democrats in the House who are calling for a Green New Deal, a massive government push to turn away from fossil fuels and build renewable energy infrastructure, The Huffington Post reported.<br></p><p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-2581756053.html" target="_self">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a> confirmed her win after her surprise primary victory in New York's 14th district this summer, and she is joined in championing the issue by the first two Muslim women in Congress: Ilhan Omar in Minnesota's 5th District and Rashida Tlaib in Michigan's 13th. Antonio Delgado beat Republican John Faso in New York's 19th district to round out the group. </p><p>While some influential champions of the idea, like Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum, lost their races, Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann said it was important that the idea was gaining ground given the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-ipcc-report-2610866229.html" target="_self">dire warnings</a> of the most recent <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> report on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. </p><p>"This is the sort of bold and audacious thinking that we need when it comes to confronting the ever-pressing challenge of averting catastrophic climate change," Mann told the Huffington Post.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="bd989" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="FMEBFV1576662090"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1055421267803746304" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New Green Strategy: Change the Electorate, Not the Election #ClimateVoter #VoteOnClimate #IVoted https://t.co/JGhLvyxC3Z</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1055421267803746304">1540467013.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Why Plans to Turn America’s Rust Belt Into a New Plastics Belt Are Bad News for the Climate
29 October 2018
Climate
Smoke billows from one of many petrochemical plants in Louisiana's "Cancer Alley" on Oct. 12, 2013. Giles Clarke / Getty Images
By Sharon Kelly
The petrochemical industry anticipates spending a total of over $200 billion on factories, pipelines, and other infrastructure in the U.S. that will rely on shale gas, the American Chemistry Council announced in September. Construction is already underway at many sites.
This building spree would dramatically expand the Gulf Coast's petrochemical corridor (known locally as "Cancer Alley")—and establish a new plastics and petrochemical belt across states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
<p>If those projects are completed, analysts predict the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> would flip from one of the world's highest-cost producers of <a href="http://www.plasticsindustry.org/sites/plastics.dev/files/PLASTICS%20Size%20&%20Impact%20-%20Summary.pdf" target="_blank">plastics</a> and <a href="https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Energy/Shale-Gas/Infographic-Shale-Gas-and-New-US-Chemical-Industry-Investment.pdf" target="_blank">chemicals</a> to one of the cheapest, using raw materials and energy from fracked gas wells in states like Texas, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.</p><p>Those petrochemical plans could have profound consequences for a planet already showing signs of dangerous warming and a cascade of other impacts from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate change</a>.</p><p>The gathering wave of construction comes as the Trump administration works to deregulate American industry and roll back pollution controls, putting the U.S. at odds with the rest of the world's efforts to slow climate change.</p><p>Trump <a href="http://climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker.html" target="_blank">announced</a> in June 2017 that the U.S. had halted all implementation of the 2015 <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a> and intends to fully withdraw. America is now the world's only state refusing <a href="http://climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker.html" target="_blank">participation</a> in the global agreement to curb climate change (after Syria, the final holdout, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/syria-is-joining-the-paris-agreement-now-what/545261/" target="_blank">signed</a> in November 2017).</p><p>This petrochemical industry expansion—much of it funded by foreign investors—makes America's refusal to participate in the Paris agreement all the more significant, because much of this new U.S. infrastructure would be built outside of the greenhouse gas agreement affecting the rest of the globe.</p><p>If American policy makers approve this wave of new plastics and petrochemical plants with little regard to curbing climate change and reducing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel </a>use, environmentalists warn, they'll be greenlighting hundreds of billions of dollars of investment into projects at risk of becoming stranded assets.</p><p><strong>From Rust Belt to Plastics Belt</strong></p><p>Some of the largest and most expensive petrochemical projects in the U.S. are planned in the Rust Belt states of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, a region that has suffered for decades from the collapse of the domestic steel industry but that has <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/07/01/state-regulators-struggle-keep-industry-pushes-multi-billion-dollar-fracked-petrochemical-projects" target="_blank">relatively little experience</a> with the kind of petrochemical complexes that are now primarily found on the Gulf Coast.</p><p>In November 2017, the China Energy Investment Corp., signed a Memorandum of Understanding with West Virginia that would result in the construction of $83.7 billion in plastics and petrochemicals projects over the next 20 years in that state alone—a huge slice of the $202.4 billion U.S. total. Those plans have <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/06/25/west-virginia-petrochemical-hub-china-trade-war-corruption-thrasher" target="_blank">run into snags</a> due to trade disputes between the U.S. and China and a corruption probe, though <a href="http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115573-chinese-companies-said-still-honoring-us-agreements-despite-trade-war" target="_blank">Chinese officials said</a> in late August that investment was moving forward.</p><p>The petrochemical industry's interest is spurred by the fact that the region's Marcellus and Utica shales contain significant supplies of so-called "wet gas." This wet gas often is treated as a footnote in discussions of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking/">fracking</a>, which tend to focus on the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane">methane</a> gas, called "dry gas" by industry—and not the ethane, propane, butane and other hydrocarbons that also come from those same wells.</p><p>Those "wet" fossil fuels and chemical feedstocks are commonly referred to as "natural gas liquids," or NGLs, because they are delivered to customers condensed into a liquid form—like the liquid butane trapped in a Bic lighter, which expands into a stream of flammable gas when you flick that lighter on.</p><p>Ethane can represent a surprising amount of the fossil fuel from a fracked shale well, particularly in the Marcellus. For every 6,000 cubic feet of methane (the energy equivalent of the industry's standard 42 gallon barrel of oil), Marcellus wet gas wells can produce up to roughly 35 gallons of ethane, based on data <a href="https://www.aogr.com/magazine/cover-story/infrastructure-projects-connect-marcellus-shale-to-ethane-ngl-markets" target="_blank">reported by the American Oil and Gas Reporter</a> in 2011.</p><p>And U.S. ethane production is projected to grow dramatically. By 2022, the region will produce roughly 800,000 barrels of ethane per day, up from 470,000 barrels a day in 2017, <a href="https://marcellusdrilling.com/2017/10/poor-prospects-for-moving-marcellusutica-ethane-to-gulf-coast/" target="_blank">according to energy consultant RBN Energy</a>.</p><p>That supply glut is driving down ethane prices in the Rust Belt.</p><p>"The lowest price ethane on the planet is here in this region," Brian Anderson, director of the West Virginia University Energy Institute, told the NEP Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction conference in Pittsburgh in June.</p><p><strong>Chemicals and the Climate</strong></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc3ODY0NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTY3NjAwNH0.y5mLvv-mjYCjyZUluo_T0pjHSVLuzF12N37OVqZLQg4/img.jpg?width=980" id="ac72e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1867c0cf009fc3d02dfb8043dd294287" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Image projected onto Houston petrochemical plant during the Houston Toxic Tour, 2017.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/backbone_campaign/" target="_blank">Backbone Campaign</a>, CC BY 2.0</small></p><p>The petrochemical and plastics industries are <a href="http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2017/9/29/fueling-plastics-new-research-details-fossil-fuel-role-in-plastics-proliferation" target="_blank">notoriously polluting</a>, not only when it comes to toxic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a> and plastic waste, but also because of the industry's significant greenhouse gas footprint—affecting not only the U.S., but the entire world.<br></p><p>"The chemical and petrochemical sector is by far the largest industrial energy user, accounting for roughly 10 percent of total worldwide final energy demand and 7 percent of global [greenhouse gas] emissions," the International Energy Agency reported in 2013. Since then the numbers have <a href="https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/683/original/CDP_Chemicals_2017.pdf?1507139412" target="_blank">crept up</a>, with the IEA finding petrochemicals responsible for an additional percentage point of the world's total energy consumption in <a href="https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/683/original/CDP_Chemicals_2017.pdf?1507139412" target="_blank">2017</a>.</p><p>Carbon emissions from petrochemical and plastics manufacturing are expected to grow 20 percent by 2030 (in other words, in just over a decade), the IEA concluded in a <a href="https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/2310?fileName=The_Future_of_Petrochemicals.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> released Oct. 5. A few days later, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html" target="_blank">warned</a> that by 2030, the world needs to have reduced its greenhouse gas pollution 45 percent from 2010 levels, in order to achieve the goal of limiting global warming to a less-catastrophic 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).</p><p>The petrochemicals industry has so far drawn relatively little attention from oil and gas analysts and policy makers. "Petrochemicals are one of the key blind spots in the global energy debate, especially given the influence they will exert on future energy trends," Dr. Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, <a href="https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/october/petrochemicals-set-to-be-the-largest-driver-of-world-oil-demand-latest-iea-analy.html" target="_blank">said in a statement</a> this month.</p><p>"In fact," he added, "our analysis shows they will have a greater influence on the future of oil demand than cars, trucks and aviation."</p><p>The new investments, which will rely on decades of continued fracking in the U.S, offer the oil and gas industry a serious hedge against competition from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a>, even in the event that climate policies push fossil fuel energy to the margins.</p><p>"Unlike refining, and ultimately unlike oil, which will see a moment when the growth will stop, we actually don't anticipate that with petrochemicals," Andrew Brown, upstream director for Royal Dutch Shell, <a href="https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/As-gasoline-demand-wanes-oil-industry-looks-to-12741377.php" target="_blank">told the San Antonio Express News in March</a>.</p><p>The planned infrastructure could also help bail out the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/finances-fracking-shale-industry-drills-more-debt-profit" target="_blank">heavily indebted</a> shale drilling industry financially by consuming vast amounts of fossil fuels, both for power and as a raw material.</p><p>The American Chemistry Council has <a href="https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/US-Chemical-Industry-Investment-Linked-to-Shale-Gas-Reaches-200-Billion.html" target="_blank">linked</a> 333 chemical industry projects, all announced since 2010, to shale gas—that is, gas that is produced using fracking. Forty-one percent of those projects are still in the planning phase as of September, according to the council, and 68 percent of the projects are linked to foreign investment.</p><p>State regulators in Texas and Louisiana have already issued permits that would allow a group of 74 petrochemical and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects along the Gulf Coast to add 134 million tons of greenhouse gases a year to the atmosphere, an <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/09/27/texas-louisiana-new-petrochemical-oil-gas-projects-climate-change-29-coal-power" target="_blank">Environmental Integrity Project analysis found</a> in September. The group said that was equal to the pollution from running 29 new <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> power plants around the clock.</p><p>The expansion of plastics manufacturing in America also has environmentalists worried over a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/19/plastic-pollution-risks-near-permanent-contamination-of-natural-environment" target="_blank">plastics pollution crisis</a>. "We could be locking in decades of expanded plastics production at precisely the time the world is realizing we should use far less of it," Carroll Muffett, president of the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> Center for International Environmental Law, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/26/180bn-investment-in-plastic-factories-feeds-global-packaging-binge" target="_blank">told The Guardian in December 2017</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc3ODY1Mi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTM5MzAxNn0.X8YtlBG8jx4JT4CQUQSo4px5hCaTCKckHBZMG-Du0w4/img.png?width=980" id="59935" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5d5f32decba6bf0c974c749636e944a2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">This story is part of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-plastics" target="_blank">Fracking for Plastics</a>, a DeSmog investigation into the proposed petrochemical build-out in the Rust Belt and the major players involved.</small></p><p><strong>Petrochemical Paradox</strong><br></p><p>The petrochemical industry transforms ethane and other raw material into a huge range of products, including not only plastic, but also vinyl, fertilizers, Styrofoam, beauty products, chemicals and pesticides.</p><p>The petrochemicals industry itself straddles an uncomfortable fence when it comes to renewable energy and climate change. A significant portion of its revenue comes from "clean" technology sectors, as it provides materials used to make batteries and electric cars.</p><p><a href="https://www.greenbiz.com/article/despite-innovation-chemicals-sector-slow-paris-goals" target="_blank">One report</a> last year concluded that roughly 20 percent of the industry's revenue comes from products designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the American Chemistry Council cited the industry's role supplying "materials and technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions," as it <a href="https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i23/Scientific-groups-disappointed-Trump-move-on-climate.html" target="_blank">opposed Trump's decision</a> to drop out of the Paris agreement.</p><p>But petrochemical manufacturers are also heavily reliant on fossil fuels. They need them to power and supply a dreamed-of "manufacturing renaissance," as the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">ExxonMobil</a>-funded <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute" target="_blank">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> explained as it <a href="https://cei.org/blog/5-advantages-stepping-away-paris-climate-treaty" target="_blank">pushed</a> for Trump to abandon the Paris agreement.</p><p>Plans to use American shale gas would also link petrochemicals to the expansion of fracking, which carries its own environmental concerns. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's landmark study on fracking and drinking water <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/fracking-can-harm-drinking-water-in-some-circumstances-epa-says/?utm_term=.3c06d4173d93" target="_blank">concluded</a> in 2016 that fracking has led to water contamination and poses continued risks to American water supplies.</p><p>In addition, though conversations about climate change usually focus on carbon emissions, the gas industry has <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/nasa-study-fracking-global-warming-0fa0c5b5f5c7/" target="_blank">such a bad methane leak problem</a> that using natural gas <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/methane-leaks-erase-climate-benefit-of-fracked-gas-countless-studies-find-8b060b2b395d/" target="_blank">can be even worse</a> for the climate than burning coal.</p><p><strong>Pittsburgh and Paris</strong></p><p>Climate implications make a petrochemical build-out risky, not only from an environmental perspective, but also from a fiscal perspective, Mark Dixon, co-founder of<a href="https://nopetropa.wordpress.com/" target="_blank"> NoPetroPA</a>, which opposes fracking-based petrochemicals projects, told DeSmog.</p><p>One plant, Shell's $6 billion ethane "cracker" plant currently under construction in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, has permits to pump 2.25 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year into the air near Pittsburgh, roughly equal to the annual carbon pollution from 430,000 cars.</p><p>Industry advocates say the region can produce enough ethane to support up to <a href="https://marcellusdrilling.com/2018/03/m-u-could-support-8-crackers-why-dont-companies-build-more/" target="_blank">seven more ethane cracker plants</a> like Shell's.</p><p><span></span><span style="background-color: initial;">"</span>We're trying to drop our emissions 50 percent by 2030," Dixon said, referring to Pittsburgh's <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/pittsburgh-fires-back-trump-paris-agreement" target="_blank">highly touted plans</a> to comply with international climate targets despite the federal government's withdrawal from the Paris agreement. "The Shell cracker alone will decimate that."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc3ODY1Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwODE1MTI5NH0.cvpiWX_zV38QrMc4T5pnQ6FcQ0JRIU4amYFQBrx3J-4/img.jpg?width=980" id="d701a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9f8bb4a7e0fcc01464402dcd3f28e71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A kayaker protests against Shell's cracker project outside the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in June 2018.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/9602574@N02/" target="_blank">Mark Dixon</a>, CC BY 2.0</small></p><p><strong>Stranding Assets</strong><br></p><p>International negotiators <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord/good-progress-at-bangkok-climate-talks-on-draft-paris-accord-rules-u-n-official-idUSKCN1LP0DN" target="_blank">met in Bangkok</a> in September to hash out details on how the Paris agreement will be implemented. The U.S., which participated in talks despite the Trump administration's intention to withdraw from the accord, faced <a href="https://www.firstpost.com/world/developing-countries-accuse-us-allies-of-stalling-progress-on-paris-accord-as-emergency-un-climate-talks-wrap-up-5150381.html" target="_blank">criticism</a> over working to <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-negotiations-struggling-to-make-real-progress-ahead-of-poland-talks_us_5b96d740e4b0162f47300fa4" target="_blank">delay clarity</a> over the agreement's financing (nonetheless, a top UN negotiator <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-accord/good-progress-at-bangkok-climate-talks-on-draft-paris-accord-rules-u-n-official-idUSKCN1LP0DN" target="_blank">praised</a> "good progress" from the talks).</p><p>While the Paris agreement is not directly binding, globally there has been <a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-06-tariffs-paris-climate-commitments.html" target="_blank">discussion</a> of using trade agreements and tariffs to pressure countries that fail to keep up with their carbon-cutting commitments.</p><p>In February, the European Union (EU) <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-trade-deal-paris-climate-change-accord-agreement-cecilia-malmstr-m-a8206806.html" target="_blank">declared</a> that it will not sign new trade agreements with any country that refuses to get on board with the Paris agreement.</p><p>"One of our main demands is that any country who signs a trade agreement with EU should implement the Paris agreement on the ground," France's foreign affairs minister <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/02/08/eu-tells-trump-no-paris-climate-deal-no-free-trade/#363586e437c7" target="_blank">Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne told the French Parliament</a>. "No Paris agreement, no trade agreement."</p><p>"They're already shooting across the bow, saying look, you've got to implement the Paris climate agreement," Dixon told DeSmog. "We could very well spend 10 years building an infrastructure to support fracking all over the region, crackers, ethane, plastics, everything, then have Europe say, 'sorry, you can't do that. You have to shut it down.'"</p><p>In other words, whether or not the U.S. puts its signature on the climate pact's dotted line, the pressure from trading partners to reduce greenhouse gas pollution—and the underlying concerns about the rapidly warming climate—could remain the same.</p><p>That said, while the U.S. is the only country to reject Paris on paper, it is far from the only country on track to miss its targets aimed at warding off catastrophic climate change. Only Morocco and The Gambia are projected to hit "Paris Agreement Compatible" targets, according to the <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank">Climate Action Tracker</a> (whose rating tracker includes many major polluters but not all countries worldwide).</p><p>The EU itself currently earns a rating of "insufficient" from the group (China is ranked "highly insufficient," while the U.S. and four other nations earned the worst "critically insufficient" grade).</p><p><strong>Closing Windows</strong></p><p>The next several years will determine the future of petrochemical production for decades to come, crucial years when it comes to the fate of the climate, if industry gets its timing right—particularly in the Rust Belt.</p><p>"The window to make this all work is not forever," Charles Schliebs of Stone Pier Capital Advisors told the NEP Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction conference in June. "It's maybe two to five years."</p><p>That means key decisions may be made while <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/donald-trump" target="_blank">Donald Trump</a> remains in office—though state and local regulators will also face important calls over permits and construction planning.</p><p>For some living near the center of the planned petrochemical expansion, the problem is readily apparent.</p><p>"We're not going to be able to double down on fossil fuels," Dixon said, "and comply with the Paris climate agreement."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="acc2a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="FKE34F1576663323"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="992156876497448960" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Link Between Fossil Fuels, Single-Use Plastics and Climate Change https://t.co/dNvbx9e4r9 @PlasticPollutes @GreenNewsDaily</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/992156876497448960">1525383607.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Follow the DeSmog investigative series, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-plastics" target="_blank">Fracking for Plastics</a>, and get your questions answered with the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/21/field-guide-petrochemical-and-plastics-industry" target="_blank">Field Guide to the Petrochemical and Plastics Industry</a>.</em><br></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/10/28/petrochemical-industry-america-rust-belt-plastics-fracking-climate" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less