[Biofuel] Norway still fails to cut its emissions
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/06/29/norway-fails-to-cut-emissions/ Norway still fails to cut its emissions June 29, 2016 While several other countries in the European Union have cut their carbon emissions in half, they’ve increased in oil-producing Norway. One critic claims Norwegian politicians have been opposed in principle to making cuts for many years, and none will occur any time soon. A new report from the European Environment Agency (EEA) confirms how poorly Norway is doing in cutting its own emissions. Norway has long favoured paying other countries to cut emissions while failing to do so itself. According to the EEA report, Norway’s carbon emissions increased by 2.4 percent between 1990 and 2014. Newspaper Dagsavisen reported Wednesday that overall emissions in the EU declined by 24.4 percent in the same period. Several countries cut their emissions by half, with Lithuania doing the best by reducing them by 59.6, followed closely by Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Marius Holm, leader of the environmental group Zero, noted that it’s not fair to directly compare those countries’ cuts with Norway because they still had old industrial plants and used lots of coal as a holdover from their years as part of the Soviet Union. They’ve since eliminated much of that, Holm that, which accounts for their impressive emission cuts statistics. Neighbours also shame Norway “But it’s relevant to compare Norway to our neighbours,” he added, and then Norway still compares badly. Denmark, for example, has cut emissions by 27.6 percent, Sweden by 24.4 percent and Finland by 17.1 percent, while Norway’s emissions have risen. “In these countries, there are firm policies to cut emissions,” Holm told Dagssavisen. “Norway could have done the same. Instead there’s been political focus on buying climate quotas, even though they don’t work.” It’s not just Norway’s oil and gas industry that’s to blame. Emissions from vehicular traffic, for example, have increased despite record sales of electric cars. Such emissions have also increased in the EU, as have emissions from use of air conditioning systems. News last week that Oil & Energy Minister Tord Lien wants to delay carbon capture and storage facilities by another two years, in the hopes their costs will come down, will further delay emissions cuts. Despite strict and unpopular new measures to limit driving in Oslo, city politicians can’t hope to reduce emissions in Oslo until carbon capture and storage is finally in place at the city’s garbage processing and thermal power plant at Klemetsrud. City seeks funds for Klemetsrud Now the city is lobbying hard for state funds to ensure the earliest possible opening of a carbon capture and storage facility at Klemetsrud. “We have said all along we rely on cooperation and contributions from the state,” city government leader Raymond Johansen of the Labour Party told newspaper Aftenposten. The state will decide which of three industrial sites will get carbon capture and storage facilities first: Klemetsrud, Norcem’s cement plant in Brevik or Yara’s ammonia plant in Porsgrunn. Feasibility studies show they can be built at all three sites, with actual cost estimates due later this summer. Aftenposten also pointed out on Wednesday that since the City of Oslo won’t be needing state guarantees to pay for a Winter Olympics in 2022, after the state shot down that project based on high costs and lack of public support, perhaps some of the money the city would have spent on sports facilities can be channeled into helping to reserve climate change instead. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Pipeline that spilled 30, 000 gallons of crude oil in Ventura reopens
http://www.vcstar.com/news/local/pipeline-that-spilled-3-gallons-of-crude-oil-in-ventura-reopens-369b2782-90ac-1cdd-e053-017f-385275331.html Pipeline that spilled 30,000 gallons of crude oil in Ventura reopens By Jean Cowden Moore A pipeline that leaked nearly 30,000 gallons of crude oil in Ventura has reopened, just eight days after an early-morning spill on June 23. The pipeline reopened Thursday night after the state fire marshal certified that it was safe, said Tim Gallagher, spokesman for the pipeline's owner, Crimson Pipeline. The certification came after the fire marshal's office inspected the pipeline this week, Gallagher said. But Mark Watkins, Ventura city manager, said he was frustrated that residents weren't notified before the pipeline reopened, especially after a meeting Thursday night when they questioned company, local and state officials about the spill. Residents should be told what caused the spill, how long the cleanup will take, and what Crimson is doing so it doesn't happen again, Watkins said. "It's very frustrating to find out they just put it back into service, and the community wasn't notified," he said. "We expect a higher level of communication in the future." Residents had not been informed of the reopening by 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The agencies involved planned to notify people by email and possibly by going door to door, starting Friday evening, Gallagher said. State regulations required that Crimson start putting crude oil back into the pipeline as soon as it was certified safe, Gallagher said. Before the fire marshal's office inspected the pipeline, workers cleared out any remaining crude oil, using liquid nitrogen, Gallagher said. Then they did the inspection. The inspection satisfied the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said spokeswoman Amy Norris. "If the fire marshal has certified that it's safe, then we're completely comfortable," Norris said. The spill, which started just northeast of Ventura High School, leaked crude oil into a nearby gorge but it did not reach the beach. The oil flowed for about half a mile down the Prince Barranca and Hall Canyon before it was stopped. The cause of the spill, which started at a valve in the pipeline, is still under investigation. The valve had been replaced the day before the incident. Crimson has had 10 spills in the past decade, causing about $5.9 million in property damage, according to the U.S. Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Nestlé Plans to Bottle Water From Drought-Stricken Phoenix
http://ecowatch.com/2016/07/02/nestle-bottle-water-drought-ridden-phoenix/ [Regarding the claim of 40-50 additional jobs in the new Phoenix plant: unless this corresponds to *additional* demand for millions of bottles in Phoenix, presumably those jobs will be off-set by job losses wherever Nestlé currently bottles water to meet existing demand in Phoenix. links in on-line article] Nestlé Plans to Bottle Water From Drought-Stricken Phoenix Lorraine Chow | July 2, 2016 12:43 pm Nestlé is planning to open a bottled water plant in Phoenix. Yes, drought-stricken Phoenix, Arizona. According to the Associated Press, Nestlé Waters will treat the city’s tap water and bottle it under its Pure Life brand. The plan is to extract about 35 million gallons of water in its first year to produce 264 million half-liter bottles. The city’s water services department insists there’s enough water to spare, even though Arizona is in the midst of a historic drought. As Bloomberg writes: Phoenix produced about 95 billion gallons of water in 2015. It gets more than half from Arizona’s Salt and Verde rivers, and a little less than that from a Colorado River diversion, some of which is piped into storage aquifers for emergency use. About 2 percent is groundwater. The Nestlé plant would use about 35 million gallons (or 264 million half-liter bottles) when it opens in the spring, or about 0.037 percent of the volume that comes out of the city’s plants and wells. So with that kind of math, and all the demand for bottled water among thirsty Phoenicians, it looks like there’s plenty to go around—even enough for Nestlé to pour out of the tap, bottle and sell for a few bucks. Unsurprisingly, many people are wondering why it is necessary to bottle water in the middle of a desert when Arizonans can just drink it from the tap. “Arizona is in drought conditions and with more people moving here each day it is imperative that we do everything we can to conserve water,” a Change.org petition signed by nearly 45,000 people states. “Even on the City of Phoenix website, we are reminded that the future of our city water supply is uncertain.” A Facebook group has also been formed to protest the proposed plant. “This plant approval further reveals the breathtaking duplicity of city managers as they attempt to force residents to implement water conservation measures,” wrote Dr. Anton G. Camarota, an Arizona resident and a member of the Facebook group. “The managers state that ‘by watering your lawn wisely, you can conserve a precious resource and save money on your water bill,’ and ‘it is important to conserve water as a lifestyle. It’s everyone’s job to think about water … every time you use it … and use it responsibly.’ At the same time that they promulgate these platitudes, they are selling water to a private company for profit. The managers fail to see that water is not merely a lifestyle choice, in the deserts of Arizona it is the difference between life and death.” Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S., provides water to Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico. In May, water levels shrunk to 37 percent full—the lowest it has ever been. Water levels could dip even further as climate change unfolds, triggering mandatory restrictions. Federal water managers warned that they might have to temporarily reduce Arizona’s allotment in 2018. Sucking up the city’s precious resource is not the only concern. Americans are now drinking water from these single-use plastic items more than soda, potentially creating mounds of plastic waste if the bottles are not properly recycled. Bloomberg reported that Nestlé’s chose to build a plant in Phoenix to cut down transportation costs of moving water into the region. Other factors included water quantity, water quality, regulatory burdens, local concerns and Nestlé’s corporate perspective, according to Nelson Switzer, chief sustainability officer of Nestlé Waters. “We want to be where people want us,” Switzer said. Gauging a community’s welcome (or lack thereof) is a part of the process. “If all of those things together make sense, then we can site,” he continued. The plant is expected to create between 40 to 50 jobs. The company said water scarcity is a real concern, and “in areas where population growth is threatening to exceed available water supplies, the concern is heightened.” If Nestlé builds the plant, Phoenix will be home to four bottle plants, including Pepsi Bottling Co., Niagara Bottling and DS Services of America. Nestlé is also facing opposition over bottling plants from communities in San Bernardino, California, Hood River County, Oregon and Eldred Township, Pennsylvania. Last month, college-bound student Hannah Rousey of Lovell, Maine turned down a $1,000 scholarship money from Nestlé subsidiary Poland Spring due to her objections to bottled water and the company’s environmentally destructive practices.
[Biofuel] High-Level EPA Adviser Accused of Scientific Fraud in Methane Leak Research | DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/28/high-level-epa-adviser-accused-scientific-fraud-methane-leak-research High-Level EPA Adviser Accused of Scientific Fraud in Methane Leak Research By Sharon Kelly • Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - 11:02 It's one of the highest-stakes debates in the battle over climate change policy action: how much methane is spewing from oil and gas sites nationwide, and what do we do as a result? If enough of the odorless, colorless methane gas leaks or is vented into the air, scientists say, then burning natural gas — marketed as a green fuel that can help wean the U.S. off of high-carbon fuels — will actually be worse for the climate than coal, long seen as the fuel that contributes the most to global warming. Recently, over 100 community and environmental groups sent a letter urging the Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog to investigate claims that a top methane researcher had committed scientific fraud and charging that he had made false and misleading statements to the press in response to those claims. Earlier this month, NC WARN, an environmental group, presented the EPA Inspector General with evidence it said showed that key research on methane leaks was tainted, and that one of the EPA's top scientific advisors fraudulently concealed evidence that a commonly-used tool for collecting data from oil and gas wells gives artificially low methane measurements. The 68-page complaint dated June 8 laid out evidence that David Allen, a professor of engineering at the University of Texas who served as the chairman of the EPA's Science Advisory Board from 2012 to 2015, disregarded red flags that his methane measuring equipment malfunctioned when collecting data from fracked well sites, a problem that caused his University of Texas study to lowball leak rates. “We used the terms scientific fraud and cover-up because we believe there’s possible criminal violations involved,” said NC WARN executive director Jim Warren. “The consequence is that for the past 3 years the industry has been arguing, based largely on the 2013 study, that emissions are low enough that we shouldn’t regulate them.” Dr. Allen's research is a part of a high-profile but controversial research series sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund that received one third of its funding from the oil and gas industry. In response to the NC WARN complaint, Dr. Allen issued a statement saying that his team's data was unaffected, saying that “we had 2-3 additional, independent measurement systems” other than the error-prone tool. But the new letter to the Inspector General labeled that response misleading, saying that in fact, there “was virtually no back-up” testing and that Dr. Allen's response continued “the pattern of covering up the underreporting of methane emissions”. The sharp rise of the U.S. gas drilling industry over the past decade or so means that it's crucial for policy-makers and the public to know exactly how much methane — the key ingredient in natural gas, which is also a powerful greenhouse gas that can warm the climate 100 times as much as an equal amount of carbon dioxide — leaks or is deliberately vented into the atmosphere by the oil industry. In March, federal energy experts predicted that 2016 will be the first year that the U.S. burns more gas than coal to generate electricity — and if enough of that methane leaks, the switch from coal to gas may spell disaster rather than relief for the climate, scientists warn. The problem with Dr. Allen's research wasn't simply that the team used a faulty tool — the Bacharach Hi-Flow methane sampler is widely used by researchers and the industry — but that Dr. Allen rejected warnings from Touche Howard, the man who invented the technology used in the tool, that the readings were artificially low, without any sound scientific justification for waving off warnings, the complaint says. “The problems Mr. Howard identified have not been openly addressed or corrected, resulting in the failure of the EPA to accurately report methane emissions for more than two years, much less require reductions,” NC Warn, a North Carolina-based environmental group, wrote in its complaint to the EPA's internal watchdog. “Meanwhile, the faulty data and measuring equipment are still being used extensively throughout the natural gas industry worldwide.” While Dr. Allen's research is not the only time that the flawed tool was used to collect data, his two studies have been used by the oil and gas industry and its supporters to support claims that leaks and venting are too low to require federal regulation. “The Allen studies are high-profile studies that have been widely cited (197 times as of April 2016) and presented before White House and Congressional staff,” the complaint to the EPA said, “and, as such, have given policy makers and the public an incorrect view of methane emissions from production s
