By David Lyon

The federal administration’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA are devastating. Nearly all climate-related programs are proposed to be cut or greatly reduced, including the popular ENERGY STAR program.

Yet two critical climate EPA programs have maintained partial funding in the current proposal – the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).  These programs provide critical reports each year outlining U.S. man-made greenhouse emissions across the country. These informative reports are vital to the energy sector and our regional climate initiatives and must be preserved by this and future federal administrations.

If we are not measuring and tracking our annual output of greenhouse gases, our ability to verifiably reduce our emissions becomes severely impaired. Our country – along with public and industry stakeholders across the work –needs access to this U.S. data each year in order to understand patterns and trends in greenhouse gas emissions.  Transparent reporting of GHG data can help hold emitters publicly accountable and facilitate emission reductions.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

The GHGI program was initiated more than 20 years ago and provides detailed, yet incomplete, accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for dozens of U.S. source categories caused by human activities. The report provides an assessment of the country’s GHG emissions history and can guide future reduction targets. The GHGI is also a source of valuable scientific data and can guide investment in emissions research and mitigation. The gases covered by the inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The GHGI has been highly detailed and science-based, and the EPA historically has been committed to making continuous improvements to this report. Great progress has been made in the last few years in regards to updating the estimate of the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions, but additional work is needed to increase its accuracy.

The administration should provide the GHGI with an adequate budget to implement two to three major science-based updates each year, such as fully accounting for oil and gas super-emitters and including estimates of abandoned wells. The EPA should also be free to make updates to the report free of political interference whenever needed.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The GHGRP provides emission data from the largest industrial facilities in the country. Facilities measured under this program emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, supply consumers with fossil fuels, or inject carbon dioxide.  The GHGRP is a mandatory reporting program for U.S. facilities emitting GHGs ≥ 25,000 metric tons CO2e. Facilities have annually reported emissions and associated data since 2010.  In 2015, approximately 8,000 facilities reported 3 billion metric tons CO2e.

The GHGRP data derived from these reports is highly valuable for research into the quantification and mitigation of emissions.  The EPA also started recently integrating GHGRP data into the GHGI, which increases the accuracy of the inventory relying on the most recently available data.

GHGRP reports provide the public with verifiable and standardized data from the largest polluters. The proposed budget mentions potential revisions related to reporting of sensitive business information.  While improvements to the efficiency of the reporting program are welcome, EPA should not weaken the transparency of the program by classifying more data elements as confidential.

Insufficient Budgets Lead to Insufficient Emission Data

The proposed administration budget slashes all of the research funding and most of the implementation funds for the GHGRP. Many science-based updates need to be made to the report, including the use of more direct measurements. The administration should provide the GHGRP with an adequate budget to continuously research and implement updates to improve the accuracy of reported data.

In order for our cities, states and industrial energy facilities to measure and reduce their greenhouse emissions, they must have access to these reports. The value and accuracy of these reports will decrease significantly if they are not funded appropriately. Without sufficient budgets, the EPA will also lose its ability to continuously improve the data quality and reporting efficiency of the reports.  Trump might have pulled the U.S. federal government out of the Paris agreement last week, but 187 U.S. city mayors have already pledged to adopt and commit to the goals outlined in the agreement.

Appropriate budgets are required for these reports, though objectivity and access are paramount, as well. Updates to these reports should be driven by science – not business interests.  And the EPA should assure the public that this data remains publically available.

Without annual U.S. greenhouse gas emission data derived from these reports, polluters and stakeholders will not have the information required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, we will all be flying blind, and now is not the time to lack current climate data.

Image source: Public Domain Pictures

The federal administration’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA are devastating. Nearly all climate-related programs are proposed to be cut or greatly reduced, including the popular ENERGY STAR program. Yet two critical climate EPA programs have maintained partial funding in the current proposal – the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). […]

By David Lyon

The federal administration’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA are devastating. Nearly all climate-related programs are proposed to be cut or greatly reduced, including the popular ENERGY STAR program.

Yet two critical climate EPA programs have maintained partial funding in the current proposal – the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) and Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).  These programs provide critical reports each year outlining U.S. man-made greenhouse emissions across the country. These informative reports are vital to the energy sector and our regional climate initiatives and must be preserved by this and future federal administrations.

If we are not measuring and tracking our annual output of greenhouse gases, our ability to verifiably reduce our emissions becomes severely impaired. Our country – along with public and industry stakeholders across the work –needs access to this U.S. data each year in order to understand patterns and trends in greenhouse gas emissions.  Transparent reporting of GHG data can help hold emitters publicly accountable and facilitate emission reductions.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

The GHGI program was initiated more than 20 years ago and provides detailed, yet incomplete, accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for dozens of U.S. source categories caused by human activities. The report provides an assessment of the country’s GHG emissions history and can guide future reduction targets. The GHGI is also a source of valuable scientific data and can guide investment in emissions research and mitigation. The gases covered by the inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The GHGI has been highly detailed and science-based, and the EPA historically has been committed to making continuous improvements to this report. Great progress has been made in the last few years in regards to updating the estimate of the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions, but additional work is needed to increase its accuracy.

The administration should provide the GHGI with an adequate budget to implement two-three major science-based updates each year, such as fully accounting for oil and gas super-emitters and including estimates of abandoned wells. The EPA should also be free to make updates to the report free of political interference whenever needed.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

The GHGRP program provides emission data from the largest industrial facilities in the country. Facilities measured under this program emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, supply consumers with fossil fuels, or inject carbon dioxide.  The GHGRP is a mandatory reporting program for U.S. facilities emitting GHGs ≥ 25,000 metric tons CO2e. Facilities have annually reported emissions and associated data since 2010.  In 2015, approximately 8,000 facilities reported 3 billion metric tons CO2e.

The GHGRP data derived from these reports is highly valuable for research into the quantification and mitigation of emissions.  The EPA also started recently integrating GHGRP data into the GHGI, which increases the accuracy of the inventory relying on the most recently available data.

GHGRP reports provide the public with verifiable and standardized data from the largest polluters. The proposed budget mentions potential revisions related to reporting of sensitive business information.  While improvements to the efficiency of the reporting program are welcome, EPA should not weaken the transparency of the program by classifying more data elements as confidential.

Insufficient Budgets Lead to Insufficient Emission Data

The proposed administration budget slashes all of the research funding and most of the implementation funds for the GHGRP. Many science-based updates need to be made to the report, including the use of more direct measurements. The administration should provide the GHGRP with an adequate budget to continuously research and implement updates to improve the accuracy of reported data.

In order for our cities, states and industrial energy facilities to measure and reduce their greenhouse emissions, they must have access to these reports. The value and accuracy of these reports will decrease significantly if they are not funded appropriately. Without sufficient budgets, the EPA will also lose its ability to continuously improve the data quality and reporting efficiency of the reports.  Trump might have pulled the U.S. federal government out of the Paris agreement last week, but 187 U.S. city mayors have already pledged to adopt and commit to the goals outlined in the agreement.

Appropriate budgets are required for these reports, though objectivity and access are paramount, as well. Updates to these reports should be driven by science – not business interests.  And the EPA should assure the public that this data remains publically available.

Without annual U.S. greenhouse gas emission data derived from these reports, polluters and stakeholders will not have the information required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, we will all be flying blind, and now is not the time to lack current climate data.

Image source: Public Domain Pictures

By Jim Marston

As Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry set out to examine the impact of policies or regulations on coal and nuclear plants.

He wasn’t the only one. A new report from the Analysis Group, commissioned by national business groups Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) and American Wind Energy Association, finds market forces are pushing old coal and nuclear plants to retire, without posing any threat to the electric grid’s reliability. In other words, coal can’t compete in today’s market, and the United States is getting a cleaner, more diverse, and reliable energy mix as a result.

Market forces

The American energy system is undergoing a transformation, with more – and cleaner – power options than ever before.

The primary driver of change? Market forces. In efficient and competitive markets, it’s natural for uneconomic assets (cough, coal) to be pushed out.

The Analysis Group report outlines the top three factors contributing to the retirement of lumbering coal and nuclear power plants:

• highly efficient new gas-fired resources,
• low natural gas prices, and
• flat demand for electricity.

The report also highlights the importance of the declining costs of new energy technology (like solar panels), state policies that encourage clean energy adoption, and customer behavior.

Reliability? No problem.

The report finds that more natural gas and renewable energy contributes to a reliable grid. Advanced energy technology actually provides reliability benefits, because the grid is becoming more efficient and diverse.

So, for anyone trying to claim we need to bail out aging, inefficient coal and nuclear power plants for the sake of electric reliability, “The evidence does not support this view.”

From the beginning, all signs pointed to Perry’s so-called study as a piece of coal power propoganda. If the DOE comes out with wildly different conclusions than those of the independent study from the Analysis Group, it will look more than suspicious.

Modern energy technology is building a cleaner, more flexible, and reliable electric grid, while creating thousands of new jobs. Or as Graham Richard, CEO of AEE, put it, “The electricity system in the United States is stronger than it's ever been.” Your move, Perry.

Photo source: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

By Jim Marston

As Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry set out to examine the impact of policies or regulations on coal and nuclear plants.

He wasn’t the only one. A new report from the Analysis Group, commissioned by national business groups Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) and American Wind Energy Association, finds market forces are pushing old coal and nuclear plants to retire, without posing any threat to the electric grid’s reliability. In other words, coal can’t compete in today’s market, and the United States is getting a cleaner, more diverse, and reliable energy mix as a result.

Market forces

The American energy system is undergoing a transformation, with more – and cleaner – power options than ever before.

The primary driver of change? Market forces. In efficient and competitive markets, it’s natural for uneconomic assets (cough, coal) to be pushed out.

The Analysis Group report outlines the top three factors contributing to the retirement of lumbering coal and nuclear power plants:

• highly efficient new gas-fired resources,
• low natural gas prices, and
• flat demand for electricity.

The report also highlights the importance of the declining costs of new energy technology (like solar panels), state policies that encourage clean energy adoption, and customer behavior.

Reliability? No problem.

The report finds that more natural gas and renewable energy contributes to a reliable grid. Advanced energy technology actually provides reliability benefits, because the grid is becoming more efficient and diverse.

So, for anyone trying to claim we need to bail out aging, inefficient coal and nuclear power plants for the sake of electric reliability, “The evidence does not support this view.”

From the beginning, all signs pointed to Perry’s so-called study as a piece of coal power propoganda. If the DOE comes out with wildly different conclusions than those of the independent study from the Analysis Group, it will look more than suspicious.

Modern energy technology is building a cleaner, more flexible, and reliable electric grid, while creating thousands of new jobs. Or as Graham Richard, CEO of AEE, put it, “The electricity system in the United States is stronger than it's ever been.” Your move, Perry.

Photo source: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

By Jim Marston

As Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry set out to examine the impact of policies or regulations on coal and nuclear plants.

He wasn’t the only one. A new report from the Analysis Group, commissioned by national business groups Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) and American Wind Energy Association, finds market forces are pushing old coal and nuclear plants to retire, without posing any threat to the electric grid’s reliability. In other words, coal can’t compete in today’s market, and the United States is getting a cleaner, more diverse, and reliable energy mix as a result.

Market forces

The American energy system is undergoing a transformation, with more – and cleaner – power options than ever before.

The primary driver of change? Market forces. In efficient and competitive markets, it’s natural for uneconomic assets (cough, coal) to be pushed out.

The Analysis Group report outlines the top three factors contributing to the retirement of lumbering coal and nuclear power plants:

• highly efficient new gas-fired resources,
• low natural gas prices, and
• flat demand for electricity.

The report also highlights the importance of the declining costs of new energy technology (like solar panels), state policies that encourage clean energy adoption, and customer behavior.

Reliability? No problem.

The report finds that more natural gas and renewable energy contributes to a reliable grid. Advanced energy technology actually provides reliability benefits, because the grid is becoming more efficient and diverse.

So, for anyone trying to claim we need to bail out aging, inefficient coal and nuclear power plants for the sake of electric reliability, “The evidence does not support this view.”

From the beginning, all signs pointed to Perry’s so-called study as a piece of coal power propoganda. If the DOE comes out with wildly different conclusions than those of the independent study from the Analysis Group, it will look more than suspicious.

Modern energy technology is building a cleaner, more flexible, and reliable electric grid, while creating thousands of new jobs. Or as Graham Richard, CEO of AEE, put it, “The electricity system in the United States is stronger than it's ever been.” Your move, Perry.

Photo source: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

By: Nichole Saunders

A new report from the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) is shedding more light on what we know and don’t know about the potential health and environmental impacts caused by oil and gas development in Texas.

The report, the first of-its-kind authored by experts across the state, looks at all areas of concern related to oil and gas – including seismicity, air pollution, land and traffic issues  – but TAMEST’s observations about the risks to water are especially noteworthy.

Tracking and reducing spills and leaks

Wastewater that comes out of an oil or gas well is usually extremely salty and can be laden with chemicals, and TAMEST notes this wastewater can contaminate soil and harm vegetation. In fact, according to the report,  spilling or leaking wastewater and other substances is the most likely pathway for surface water contamination from oil and gas development in Texas. Yet Texas is the only major state that doesn’t require companies to report their produced water spills. The report suggests that Texas should consider improving spill reporting policies in order to better understand where spills are happening, and what is causing them.

The report also suggests spills can be reduced through better management of the fluids at or near the surface of a well, and asserts that regulators and industry should focus on reducing the risks of well leakage through improved well design and construction.

Managing the strain on freshwater, without causing more environmental problems

TAMEST also looks at the way industry uses water more generally. According to the report, less than 1% of the state’s freshwater is used for hydraulic fracturing, although in some rural and arid counties, as much as 90% of the local freshwater is used for oil and gas development. This can put a strain on communities where access to fresh water is scarce.

Water scarcity is driving debate about whether or not companies should drill wells with brackish (salty) water, or use their own wastewater, rather than freshwater. This practice could help alleviate water scarcity concerns. However, as TAMEST notes, the use of these alternative resources “increases the potential for spills or leaks that could lead to further environmental impacts.”

Therefore, while TAMEST notes that increased use of fresh water alternatives for oil and gas operations is desirable, the authors also recommend expanded research to understand the potential environmental trade-offs of increasing this practice.

A growing consensus to keep industry wastewater in the oilfields

The experts don’t expect the interest in reusing produced water to expand outside the oilfield (like using it for agricultural purposes) any time soon. TAMEST notes that most water from Texas oil and gas wells is “extremely poor quality” and neither the science — nor the technology — currently exist to safely or affordably treat this wastewater for use in other purposes.

According to the report, “In Texas, both economics and risk considerations dictate that much of the produced water will continue to be injected in deep wells or used as fracturing fluid to minimize impacts on other water sources.”

The TAMEST report goes further, saying there are “potential negative impacts of trace contaminants in produced water that might limit their beneficial use” outside the oilfield.

This reinforcement — that economic and risk realities mean that reuse of oil and gas wastewater is best limited to within the oilfield — aligns with EDF’s own science-based position. There are too many knowledge gaps about the toxicity of produced water chemicals to effectively design treatment systems or conduct risk assessments. Meaning we don’t currently have the ability to design effective environmental and public health policies to protect communities from exposure to this wastewater.

Oklahoma came to a similar conclusion earlier this summer. The state’s Produced Water Working Group analyzed numerous produced water management alternatives for nearly a year and concluded that the most economically and environmentally viable near-term alternative is in-field recycling and agreed that in-depth research on other reuse alternatives, including improved understanding of toxicological risks, is necessary before pursued.

There’s no doubt that water management in the oilfield can and should be improved.  Risks to fresh water resources from drought and heavily localized water use are real, and communities across the state have experienced them. But that doesn’t mean that we need to rush to alternatives that we don’t fully understand or encourage practices that create new risks to our health or environment.

The record is clear that oil and gas development can and does pose a real risk to water resources. With this report Texas experts reaffirm the realities of these potential impacts, but also join a growing chorus of voices in encouraging smarter, science-based policies and practices that aim to find a balance in the way industry and regulators address water management challenges without jeopardizing our water resources, health, and environment.

This post originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.

A new report from the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) is shedding more light on what we know and don’t know about the potential health and environmental impacts caused by oil and gas development in Texas. The report, the first of-its-kind authored by experts across the state, looks at all areas […]

The post Report identifies ways to reduce water contamination from oil and gas development in Texas appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Nichole Saunders

A new report from the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) is shedding more light on what we know and don’t know about the potential health and environmental impacts caused by oil and gas development in Texas.

The report, the first of-its-kind authored by experts across the state, looks at all areas of concern related to oil and gas – including seismicity, air pollution, land and traffic issues  – but TAMEST’s observations about the risks to water are especially noteworthy.

Tracking and reducing spills and leaks

Wastewater that comes out of an oil or gas well is usually extremely salty and can be laden with chemicals, and TAMEST notes this wastewater can contaminate soil and harm vegetation. In fact, according to the report,  spilling or leaking wastewater and other substances is the most likely pathway for surface water contamination from oil and gas development in Texas. Yet Texas is the only major state that doesn’t require companies to report their produced water spills. The report suggests that Texas should consider improving spill reporting policies in order to better understand where spills are happening, and what is causing them.

The report also suggests spills can be reduced through better management of the fluids at or near the surface of a well, and asserts that regulators and industry should focus on reducing the risks of well leakage through improved well design and construction.

Managing the strain on freshwater, without causing more environmental problems

TAMEST also looks at the way industry uses water more generally. According to the report, less than 1% of the state’s freshwater is used for hydraulic fracturing, although in some rural and arid counties, as much as 90% of the local freshwater is used for oil and gas development. This can put a strain on communities where access to fresh water is scarce.

Water scarcity is driving debate about whether or not companies should drill wells with brackish (salty) water, or use their own wastewater, rather than freshwater. This practice could help alleviate water scarcity concerns. However, as TAMEST notes, the use of these alternative resources “increases the potential for spills or leaks that could lead to further environmental impacts.”

Therefore, while TAMEST notes that increased use of fresh water alternatives for oil and gas operations is desirable, the authors also recommend expanded research to understand the potential environmental trade-offs of increasing this practice.

A growing consensus to keep industry wastewater in the oilfields

The experts don’t expect the interest in reusing produced water to expand outside the oilfield (like using it for agricultural purposes) any time soon. TAMEST notes that most water from Texas oil and gas wells is “extremely poor quality” and neither the science — nor the technology — currently exist to safely or affordably treat this wastewater for use in other purposes.

According to the report, “In Texas, both economics and risk considerations dictate that much of the produced water will continue to be injected in deep wells or used as fracturing fluid to minimize impacts on other water sources.”

The TAMEST report goes further, saying there are “potential negative impacts of trace contaminants in produced water that might limit their beneficial use” outside the oilfield.

This reinforcement — that economic and risk realities mean that reuse of oil and gas wastewater is best limited to within the oilfield — aligns with EDF’s own science-based position. There are too many knowledge gaps about the toxicity of produced water chemicals to effectively design treatment systems or conduct risk assessments. Meaning we don’t currently have the ability to design effective environmental and public health policies to protect communities from exposure to this wastewater.

Oklahoma came to a similar conclusion earlier this summer. The state’s Produced Water Working Group analyzed numerous produced water management alternatives for nearly a year and concluded that the most economically and environmentally viable near-term alternative is in-field recycling and agreed that in-depth research on other reuse alternatives, including improved understanding of toxicological risks, is necessary before pursued.

There’s no doubt that water management in the oilfield can and should be improved.  Risks to fresh water resources from drought and heavily localized water use are real, and communities across the state have experienced them. But that doesn’t mean that we need to rush to alternatives that we don’t fully understand or encourage practices that create new risks to our health or environment.

The record is clear that oil and gas development can and does pose a real risk to water resources. With this report Texas experts reaffirm the realities of these potential impacts, but also join a growing chorus of voices in encouraging smarter, science-based policies and practices that aim to find a balance in the way industry and regulators address water management challenges without jeopardizing our water resources, health, and environment.

By Nichole Saunders

A new report from the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) is shedding more light on what we know and don’t know about the potential health and environmental impacts caused by oil and gas development in Texas.

The report, the first of-its-kind authored by experts across the state, looks at all areas of concern related to oil and gas – including seismicity, air pollution, land and traffic issues  – but TAMEST’s observations about the risks to water are especially noteworthy.

Tracking and reducing spills and leaks

Wastewater that comes out of an oil or gas well is usually extremely salty and can be laden with chemicals, and TAMEST notes this wastewater can contaminate soil and harm vegetation. In fact, according to the report,  spilling or leaking wastewater and other substances is the most likely pathway for surface water contamination from oil and gas development in Texas. Yet Texas is the only major state that doesn’t require companies to report their produced water spills. The report suggests that Texas should consider improving spill reporting policies in order to better understand where spills are happening, and what is causing them.

The report also suggests spills can be reduced through better management of the fluids at or near the surface of a well, and asserts that regulators and industry should focus on reducing the risks of well leakage through improved well design and construction.

Managing the strain on freshwater, without causing more environmental problems

TAMEST also looks at the way industry uses water more generally. According to the report, less than 1% of the state’s freshwater is used for hydraulic fracturing, although in some rural and arid counties, as much as 90% of the local freshwater is used for oil and gas development. This can put a strain on communities where access to fresh water is scarce.

Water scarcity is driving debate about whether or not companies should drill wells with brackish (salty) water, or use their own wastewater, rather than freshwater. This practice could help alleviate water scarcity concerns. However, as TAMEST notes, the use of these alternative resources “increases the potential for spills or leaks that could lead to further environmental impacts.”

Therefore, while TAMEST notes that increased use of fresh water alternatives for oil and gas operations is desirable, the authors also recommend expanded research to understand the potential environmental trade-offs of increasing this practice.

A growing consensus to keep industry wastewater in the oilfields

The experts don’t expect the interest in reusing produced water to expand outside the oilfield (like using it for agricultural purposes) any time soon. TAMEST notes that most water from Texas oil and gas wells is “extremely poor quality” and neither the science — nor the technology — currently exist to safely or affordably treat this wastewater for use in other purposes.

According to the report, “In Texas, both economics and risk considerations dictate that much of the produced water will continue to be injected in deep wells or used as fracturing fluid to minimize impacts on other water sources.”

The TAMEST report goes further, saying there are “potential negative impacts of trace contaminants in produced water that might limit their beneficial use” outside the oilfield.

This reinforcement — that economic and risk realities mean that reuse of oil and gas wastewater is best limited to within the oilfield — aligns with EDF’s own science-based position. There are too many knowledge gaps about the toxicity of produced water chemicals to effectively design treatment systems or conduct risk assessments. Meaning we don’t currently have the ability to design effective environmental and public health policies to protect communities from exposure to this wastewater.

Oklahoma came to a similar conclusion earlier this summer. The state’s Produced Water Working Group analyzed numerous produced water management alternatives for nearly a year and concluded that the most economically and environmentally viable near-term alternative is in-field recycling and agreed that in-depth research on other reuse alternatives, including improved understanding of toxicological risks, is necessary before pursued.

There’s no doubt that water management in the oilfield can and should be improved.  Risks to fresh water resources from drought and heavily localized water use are real, and communities across the state have experienced them. But that doesn’t mean that we need to rush to alternatives that we don’t fully understand or encourage practices that create new risks to our health or environment.

The record is clear that oil and gas development can and does pose a real risk to water resources. With this report Texas experts reaffirm the realities of these potential impacts, but also join a growing chorus of voices in encouraging smarter, science-based policies and practices that aim to find a balance in the way industry and regulators address water management challenges without jeopardizing our water resources, health, and environment.

By Nichole Saunders

A new report from the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) is shedding more light on what we know and don’t know about the potential health and environmental impacts caused by oil and gas development in Texas.

The report, the first of-its-kind authored by experts across the state, looks at all areas of concern related to oil and gas – including seismicity, air pollution, land and traffic issues  – but TAMEST’s observations about the risks to water are especially noteworthy.

Tracking and reducing spills and leaks

Wastewater that comes out of an oil or gas well is usually extremely salty and can be laden with chemicals, and TAMEST notes this wastewater can contaminate soil and harm vegetation. In fact, according to the report,  spilling or leaking wastewater and other substances is the most likely pathway for surface water contamination from oil and gas development in Texas. Yet Texas is the only major state that doesn’t require companies to report their produced water spills. The report suggests that Texas should consider improving spill reporting policies in order to better understand where spills are happening, and what is causing them.

The report also suggests spills can be reduced through better management of the fluids at or near the surface of a well, and asserts that regulators and industry should focus on reducing the risks of well leakage through improved well design and construction.

Managing the strain on freshwater, without causing more environmental problems

TAMEST also looks at the way industry uses water more generally. According to the report, less than 1% of the state’s freshwater is used for hydraulic fracturing, although in some rural and arid counties, as much as 90% of the local freshwater is used for oil and gas development. This can put a strain on communities where access to fresh water is scarce.

Water scarcity is driving debate about whether or not companies should drill wells with brackish (salty) water, or use their own wastewater, rather than freshwater. This practice could help alleviate water scarcity concerns. However, as TAMEST notes, the use of these alternative resources “increases the potential for spills or leaks that could lead to further environmental impacts.”

Therefore, while TAMEST notes that increased use of fresh water alternatives for oil and gas operations is desirable, the authors also recommend expanded research to understand the potential environmental trade-offs of increasing this practice.

A growing consensus to keep industry wastewater in the oilfields

The experts don’t expect the interest in reusing produced water to expand outside the oilfield (like using it for agricultural purposes) any time soon. TAMEST notes that most water from Texas oil and gas wells is “extremely poor quality” and neither the science — nor the technology — currently exist to safely or affordably treat this wastewater for use in other purposes.

According to the report, “In Texas, both economics and risk considerations dictate that much of the produced water will continue to be injected in deep wells or used as fracturing fluid to minimize impacts on other water sources.”

The TAMEST report goes further, saying there are “potential negative impacts of trace contaminants in produced water that might limit their beneficial use” outside the oilfield.

This reinforcement — that economic and risk realities mean that reuse of oil and gas wastewater is best limited to within the oilfield — aligns with EDF’s own science-based position. There are too many knowledge gaps about the toxicity of produced water chemicals to effectively design treatment systems or conduct risk assessments. Meaning we don’t currently have the ability to design effective environmental and public health policies to protect communities from exposure to this wastewater.

Oklahoma came to a similar conclusion earlier this summer. The state’s Produced Water Working Group analyzed numerous produced water management alternatives for nearly a year and concluded that the most economically and environmentally viable near-term alternative is in-field recycling and agreed that in-depth research on other reuse alternatives, including improved understanding of toxicological risks, is necessary before pursued.

There’s no doubt that water management in the oilfield can and should be improved.  Risks to fresh water resources from drought and heavily localized water use are real, and communities across the state have experienced them. But that doesn’t mean that we need to rush to alternatives that we don’t fully understand or encourage practices that create new risks to our health or environment.

The record is clear that oil and gas development can and does pose a real risk to water resources. With this report Texas experts reaffirm the realities of these potential impacts, but also join a growing chorus of voices in encouraging smarter, science-based policies and practices that aim to find a balance in the way industry and regulators address water management challenges without jeopardizing our water resources, health, and environment.

By David Wolfe

The rusty patched bumblebee was listed as an endangered species in early 2017. [Photo credit]

Bees, beetles and butterflies are in big trouble.

Pollinators all over the world are experiencing dramatic declines in populations, with about 40 percent of all invertebrate pollinator species facing a very real threat of extinction. Just last October, several species of bees were added to the U.S. Endangered Species List for the first time. Monarch butterfly populations also face the potential threat of a future listing, with populations down by more than 90 percent in recent decades.

These stats are concerning because pollinator health is a strong indicator of an ecosystem’s overall health. Pollinator decline directly correlates with habitat loss, decreased plant diversity, and increased disease in the ecosystem.

This problem cannot be solved by any one sector. Restoration of pollinator habitats will require significant investment and collaboration between both public and private sectors – especially businesses with bottom lines directly tied to pollinator success.

The business case for bees

Pollinators are responsible for one third of all agricultural output in the United States and at least 35 percent of the world’s food production. Nearly 200,000 species act as pollinators – including bees, butterflies, beetles, moths, bats, birds and wasps. [Photo credit]

Pollinator declines will have significant direct and indirect impacts on companies’ business models – particularly in the food and agriculture sectors, which depend heavily on pollinators to grow fruits, vegetables and nuts. The current estimated economic impact of continued pollinator decline is approximately $186 billion.

Restoring pollinator populations to healthy levels will help avoid these economic losses and even create gains through increased yields for farmers and higher quality crops – translating to good business for companies that rely on these products.

Restoring pollinator habitat will also provide environmental benefits, including:

• improved water quality due to decreased runoff,
• decreased water usage through use of native plants that require less water,
• less soil erosion,
• increased carbon sequestration and subsequent reduction of greenhouse gases, and
• more opportunities for the public to enjoy nature and wildlife.

Corporate responsi-bee-lity

We have entered a new age of corporate social responsibility in which consumers are holding companies accountable for being good stewards. More than ever, businesses have the potential to set themselves and their products apart by being “better.” That includes being better to pollinators.

For example, Whole Foods Market worked with The Xerces Society to create the Bee Better Certified program, which allows farmers and the companies that buy their produce to indicate responsible habitat management and pesticide stewardship to consumers. Other big names like General Mills, Häagen-Dazs and White Wave are working on their supply farms to create pollinator-friendly habitat.

This sort of company involvement in all stages of a product’s life cycle is critically important for sustaining long-term business models. Companies cannot thrive without a strong supply chain, which ultimately starts with a healthy ecosystem.

The problem with Cheerios' seed mix packets was that they contained non-native species known to be noxious in some parts of the country. [Photo credit]

Companies need to bee smarter

Corporate investment in pollinator health is vitally important – but only if those dollars provide the best bang for the buck and for the bees.

Cheerios’ attempt to bring awareness to the plight of pollinators backfired when some of the wildflower species handed out in seed mix packets actually turned out to be invasive species that could destroy native populations, spread diseases and cause severe damage. When companies of this size invest big dollars in national pollinator campaigns, they have to get it right. Consumers count on it and, in this case, their mascot’s life depends on it.

To be impactful on a large scale, companies should be investing in programs like the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Exchange, which specializes in monarch recovery by combining the strongest science tools with a market-based framework to bring sustainable solutions to scale. Even better, the exchange model is focused on unleashing the untapped reservoir of pollinator habitat on America’s farms and ranches – bringing conservation solutions, and money, to the very core of the supply chain. Therefore, when a company invests in creating habitat through the exchange, it’s also investing in its key suppliers.

The Monarch Butterfly Habitat Exchange is coming online this summer, with opportunities for private companies to invest in pollinator habitat. In the future, we plan to expand or replicate the program for a host of other pollinators.

With a commitment to science, innovation and sustainability, in addition to smart investment decisions, the private sector can turn the current pollinator emergency into a big opportunity.

Related:

Monarchs still need milkweed, and farmers are growing it >>

Ranchlands: An untapped reservoir of monarch butterfly habitat >>

The year the private sector stepped up for land, water and wildlife >>

 

The investigation into Russia’s interference in our elections is critically important, but some have noted that it could be squeezing out media attention for other serious issues – including the Trump administration’s damaging environmental policies.

Case in point: Mike Pence, our usually unobtrusive vice president who last week drew headlines for hiring a personal lawyer in wake of the Russia probe.

In reality, Pence has been an important figure in the Trump administration’s policymaking all along – not the least because his relative credibility with Republicans in Congress makes him a key lobbyist for the president’s policies.

All of which means his views on the environment are worthy of our attention.

His environmental score as congressman: Zero

Unlike his boss, Vice President Pence actually has a long and specific history on environmental issues.

As congressman, he voted for pro-environment positions just 4 percent of the time, according to the League of Conservation Voters scorecard.

That means he choose the path of stronger health and environmental protections, on average, once every 25 times he had the option. His annual score peaked in 2003 at lucky 13 percent.

During half his years in Congress, he earned a zero. In short, he spent his time in the House representing the view that polluters should have few restrictions and clean energy should get less support.

As governor, he sided with polluters

Pence continued on the same track as governor of Indiana.

He and the legislature canceled the Energizing Indiana program, which was expected to create energy savings of about 11 million megawatt hours, significant cost savings and nearly 19,000 new jobs.

Energizing Indiana was established with support from the state’s previous Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, so it was far from a program pushed by wild-eyed environmentalists.

He’s a foe of the EPA

In a 2014 opinion piece in the Indianapolis Star, Pence argued against two critical U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pollution limits.

He opposed the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which limits toxins that damage the brains of development of children before and after birth.

5 critical EPA programs on Trump’s chopping block

Pence also attacked the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which protects states from pollution that drifts across borders. His criticisms were based on traditional scare tactics about the economic impact of these safeguards – which have since been proven false.

He rejects accepted climate science

Finally, Pence apparently disagrees with NASA, the National Academies of Science and all major American scientific organizations on climate change.

In 2009, for instance, he told MSNBC inaccurately, “I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming.”

Unsurprisingly, as governor of Indiana he sued the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan, the Obama-era landmark plan to reduce climate pollution from power plants.

The influence of vice presidents is often overlooked. But these days, the job involves far more than attending funerals and christening ships. The record suggests that Pence, the only member of the administration who can’t be fired, is likely to use his influence to re-enforce Trump’s zeal for tearing down key clean air and water safeguards.

It’s time to take Mr. Pence seriously as a threat to our environment. 

Overview: 6 months of Trump’s environmental assaults

Written by Diane MacEachern

I’m in the market for a new car, preferably one that has the least possible impact on climate change. Almost without thinking, I assumed that I should consider the all-electric Tesla or Bolt so that I would use no gasoline whatsoever. But a new report from Climate Central has made me stop and rethink my assumptions.

According to Climate Central, a car’s carbon footprint depends on three things:

• whether the car uses gasoline, electricity, or a combination
• how far you drive over time
• where you live

It’s this last point – my location – that caught me by surprise.

Climate Central examined data for every state in the union to identify where the electricity comes from. Their conclusion? In states where electricity is generated primarily by fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, powering electric cars can generate far more emissions than are emitted when conventional cars burn gasoline. States with large proportions of hydropower, nuclear and renewables, all energy sources that minimize carbon dioxide emissions, make driving an electric car more desirable.

Hybrid and electric vehicles are sold in all 50 states. But because states like Vermont, Rhode Island, California, Idaho, New York and Nevada burn far less coal than West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky, Missouri and Indiana, Climate Central says it makes more sense to buy an electric vehicle in the former states than the latter. The organization reports that in 37 states, an all-electric car is the most climate-friendly option compared to driving the most fuel efficient gas-powered car. Plug-in hybrids, which can run primarily on electricity but then switch to gasoline when they exhaust their range, are also more climate friendly than gas-only cars in most states. In 13 states, an exclusively gas powered car is the lowest emitter of carbon for 100,000 miles of driving, the measuring stick they used. However, because it makes sense to get the most miles per gallon, a conventional hybrid whose electric battery is recharged by regenerative braking in the car rather than the utility power grid, is even better to drive than a car that runs only on gasoline.

The Climate Central report includes a fascinating snapshot of the sources of electricity for every state, which is useful to know whether you’re in the market for a new car or not. It shows you what percentage of a state’s power comes from coal, natural gas, wood, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, and more. I was dismayed to see how little power we Marylanders get from solar and wind and how much from coal and nuclear.

The report’s website also lets you plug in your zip code to see which are the top 12 cars you should consider if you’re looking to minimize your vehicle’s climate change impact.

Since I live in Maryland, I plugged in my zip code here to see what vehicles I should at least consider if I wanted to buy a new car. Of the 12 recommendations that came up, number 1 was the BMWi3BEV 60 ah. Number 12 was the Hyundai Ioniq. What’s the difference between the two?

The BMW is all electric and emits 47,908 lbs of carbon per 100,000 miles driven.

The Hyundai is a conventional hybrid, which means it burns gasoline but gets a boost from an electric battery. It generates 57,588 lbs of carbon per 100,000 miles driven, or about a thousand pounds more of carbon per year.

On the other hand, the BMW costs about $20,000 more than the Hyundai, a not insignificant consideration. But, if I had the extra money and wanted to make the biggest dent in my vehicle’s climate change impact, the BMW should be the car I choose.

I couldn’t help but wonder how both the BMW and the Hyundai would fare next to the Tesla and the Chevy Bolt, the two electric vehicles that are gaining great acceptance among consumers because they have the greatest range per charge.

Surprisingly, neither the Bolt nor the Tesla ranked in the top 12 of my Maryland vehicle options. Using the website’s handy comparison feature, I could see that the current Tesla (not the new Model S, which will get into the market later this year) not only costs $30,000 more than the BMW, but it generates 20,000 pounds more emissions than the BMW! The Bolt is $6,000 cheaper than the BMW but generates 11,000 pounds more emissions than the BMW.

Cars are a major source of climate change. Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions. Every gallon of gas burned emits around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases, with about 19 pounds of emissions per gallon coming right out a car’s tailpipe. If you’re buying a new car and reducing climate change is a priority, review the Climate Central report even before you start doing test drives. Many decisions go into the purchase of a vehicle, but for me, emissions that impact climate change are a top concern.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

On today’s show Simone talks with the Executive Director of the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Dr. Robert Twilley about The Louisiana Sea Grant Programs working individually and in partnership to address major marine and coastal challenges. Pepper Bowen, Director of Culinaria stops by to talk with Simone about how through legal research and policy analysis, Culinaria Center reviews and addresses a wide range of local, national, and global food policy topics and issues and seeks solutions in support of ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Coastal Challenges & the Best of Bycatch appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Simone talks with the Executive Director of the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Dr. Robert Twilley about The Louisiana Sea Grant Programs working individually and in partnership to address major marine and coastal challenges. Pepper Bowen, Director of Culinaria stops by to talk with Simone about how through legal research and policy analysis, Culinaria Center reviews and addresses a wide range of local, national, and global food policy topics and issues and seeks solutions in support of ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Coastal Challenges & the Best of Bycatch appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

On today’s show Simone talks with the Executive Director of the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Dr. Robert Twilley about The Louisiana Sea Grant Programs working individually and in partnership to address major marine and coastal challenges. Pepper Bowen, Director of Culinaria stops by to talk with Simone about how through legal research and policy analysis, Culinaria Center reviews and addresses a wide range of local, national, and global food policy topics and issues and seeks solutions in support of ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches: Coastal Challenges & the Best of Bycatch appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Shaun Dakin, Moms Clean Air Force’s social media director:

Wonder Woman is a good movie. It is wonderful to see a woman as a superhero in a major summer blockbuster. It is equally amazing that Wonder Woman has surpassed $500 million worldwide and, according to Forbes, has another $100 – $150 million left in the tank in North America. Go Wonder Woman!

I’ve talked to many women – Moms who loved the movie and viewed the film with their daughters; some dressed up as mini Wonder Women. These Moms enthusiastically discussed how they waited a long time for a strong woman superhero, and how Wonder Woman is a perfect answer to the dearth of strong female superheroes.

Wonder Woman is fantastic. She’s an excellent role model for girls in a barren wasteland of male superheroes.

However, I believe that Wonder Woman also feeds into an American political narrative, one that began with the election of JFK – “If only we elected a political superhero, all our problems would disappear.”

The “superhero as politician” is the narrative that helped Obama get elected. But then allowed the majority of voters to walk away, thinking their work was complete. Even as Obama himself desperately attempted to communicate that voting for him was not going to be enough, voters did not listen.

Those voters thought by simply electing Obama, the world would magically change for the better. They surmised racism would be banished from our discourse. Putting trust in their “superhero”, they looked to him to save the economy and fix the climate crisis.

From Obama’s victory speech on June 3rd, 2008,

“…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”

Then this happened…

In 2010, the Tea Party took power in Congress, while millions of Obama voters decided to stay home and not vote.

In my opinion, the superhero as politician is what elected Trump.

In reality, there is no political superhero.

There’s only us. You and me. We get to decide how to make the world a better place, every day.

Being a citizen is a 365 day job. What does this mean?

• It means working with your local and state elected officials. (Do you know who they are?)
• It means showing up to city hall meetings on the budget. (Sounds boring, right?)
• It means going to school board meetings (Who has time for that?)
• It means running for elected office yourself. Of course, you may not want to run for office. OK, how about running for your local city council, school board, planning board, advisory committee on greening up your town, etc..?

These are not always glamorous positions that land you on the cover of Time or Rolling Stone. But citizen advocacy works…and it might just make you a superhero in your community…and perhaps more importantly, in the eyes of your kids!

Get started HERE.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN