Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 10/31/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Food Industry is Target for CTI's Color-Changing Plastics
Oct 31, 2016 | Quality Assurance & Food Safety
When food companies began looking at plastic utensils having the capability to change color based on temperature, the first question was always the same: Are these innovative plastics compliant with FDA? -
Commission Pitch on Endocrine Disruptors Takes Hits from All Sides
Oct 28, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Carmen Paun
The European Commission’s proposal on criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals has created deep divisions between EU countries, a raft of documents seen by POLITICO show. -
Hormone Disrupting Chemicals are not a Global Health Scourge
Oct 28, 2016 | KZIM KSIM Podcasts
By Julie Gunlock
Hormone Disrupting Chemicals are not a Global Health Scourge with the project Director of Culture of Alarmism at the Independent Women’s Forum -
IARC Scientists Defend Glyphosate Cancer Link; Surprised by Industry Assault
Oct 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Carey Gillam
Don’t mess with Monsanto Co. That is the message being delivered right now by the agrichemical industry as it makes a full-fledged assault on the team of international cancer scientists who dared to declare cancerous connections to the widely used herbicide called glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand. -
Pa. Plowing Ahead on Options
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Pennsylvania, the No. 4 coal-producing state in the United States, is working away at options to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. -
Online Activists Threaten N.D. Governor, Pipeline Workers
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
While an "uneasy peace" has settled over the construction site of the contested Dakota Access oil pipeline today, activists took the fight online with threats to North Dakota's Republican governor and workers on-site. -
Oil Patch States May Have Seen the Last Boom
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
When lawmakers filed into the Capitol here in August, they were repeating a familiar scene. North Dakota was in the throes of an oil bust after a six-year drilling boom that transformed parts of the state. -
RAN: Texas Rio Grande Valley Under Threat from Natural Gas
Oct 31, 2016 | Triple Pundit (in Real Clear Energy)
By Leon Kaye
The Rio Grande Valley, at the southernmost tip of Texas along the Mexican border, is one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S. Its local economy is largely dependent on agriculture, which grows crops such as the region’s popular citrus fruit. -
Gas Utilities Use 'Peer Pressure' to Build Cyberdefense
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A group representing the nation's major natural gas utilities is pressing its members to collaborate on cybersecurity and stay a step ahead of hackers and others who might want to damage critical energy infrastructure. -
The Latest: Proposed Deal in Chemical Leak Suit, Judge Balks
Oct 31, 2016 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
The Latest on a class-action lawsuit filed in a 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia (all times local): -
Feds, Mont. Pursue Yellowstone Spill Payout
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Montana and Interior Department officials are pursuing damages for a 2015 spill that contaminated the Yellowstone River with over 30,000 gallons of oil. -
IETA's Forrister Discusses Growing Engagement on Wide-Scale Emissions Trading
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
With the Paris climate agreement officially becoming binding this week, how are discussions on creating emissions trading mechanisms developing? During today's OnPoint, Dirk Forrister, CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association, discusses the challenges facing countries as the implementation phase of the climate dialogue begins. -
Coal Makes Global Poverty Worse
Oct 31, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Daniel Kammen
On the eve of the Marrakech Climate Conference (COP22) the global energy and development community has an opportunity to embrace and launch a new era of clean energy and energy equity.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Food Industry is Target for CTI's Color-Changing Plastics
Oct 31, 2016 | Quality Assurance & Food Safety
When food companies began looking at plastic utensils having the capability to change color based on temperature, the first question was always the same: Are these innovative plastics compliant with FDA?
Having achieved FDA compliance in target end-use applications, Chromatic Technologies Inc. (CTI), a pioneer in the use of temperature-sensitive inks and coatings based in Colorado Springs, Colo., set out to become a market leader in thermochromic “Masterbatch” (the industry term for a solid or liquid additive used for achieving color in plastics). In the process, CTI launched its own version with the color-changing capability, calling the process Powercapsules.
Unveiled by CTI in November 2014, Powercapsules are the result of the company’s breakthrough chemistry which includes thermochromic color concentrate pellets. Powercapsules offer customers the benefits of an enviable let-down ratio, temperature indication, and powered by new technology that drives vibrant color and UV stability, all combined with U.S.-based manufacturing utilizing good manufacturing practices.
CTI’s Powercapsules have been qualified in such popular applications as polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polystyrene (PS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS).
Powercapsules serve to enhance the consumer experience across a diverse range of products including QSR utensils, soda closures, ice cream spoons, ice trays, baby bath toys, coffee lids and soup bowls, the company said.
According to WorldCentric.org, among plastics utensils, an estimated 40 billion are used every year in the U.S. alone. Additionally, according to American Chemistry Council, 34% of plastics in the U.S. today are earmarked for packaging applications (making plastics the largest market). And PlasticsEuropeMarket Research Group (PEMRG) showed that, in Europe, packaging accounts for nearly 40 percent of plastics demand.
Research from Freedonia Group has also shown that, “Demand for foodservice disposables in the U.S. is projected to increase 3.9% per year to $21.9 billion in 2019. Packaging will remain the most common product segment and will outpace service ware, napkins and other foodservice disposables.”
CTI established three temperatures for use in the plastics industry: 59° F, 64° F, and 104° F. Custom temperatures are also available and Powercapsules are available in the CMYK and blue colors, which can be mixed to make a virtual rainbow matching most Pantone colors. A major accomplishment was achieved when CTI validated regulatory compliance in several categories concerning the food application of Powercapsules including RoHS directives, CONEG and EN 71-3 regulations, Dodd-Frank Conflict Mineral legislation, TSE requirements, California Proposition 65 legislation, no use of BPA, no use of phthalates, no use of ITX or benzophenone, manufactured in a facility free of FDA allergens or derivatives, and manufactured from materials not expected to contain genetically modified organism (GMOs), the company said.
CTI also produces photochromic, glow-in-dark and security taggants for plastic. For more information on Powercapsules, visit www.thermochromicplastic.com or www.thermochromicmasterbatch.com.
http://www.qualityassurancemag.com/article/food-industry-is-target-for-ctis-color-changing-plastics/
-
Commission Pitch on Endocrine Disruptors Takes Hits from All Sides
Oct 28, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Carmen Paun
The European Commission’s proposal on criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals has created deep divisions between EU countries, a raft of documents seen by POLITICO show.
The Commission is due to present an amended proposal in early November based on the comments received from member countries, with the first discussion scheduled at a November 16 meeting.
The criteria proposed by the Commission in mid-June have been criticized by both industry, environmental and health NGOs as being either too harsh on the pesticides industry or too lenient. The countries’ position reflect a similar division, threatening the Commission’s ability to obtain the necessary qualified majority vote from member countries to move the proposal forward.
Austria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden have all questioned different elements of the Commission’s proposal to regulate the chemicals, which are believed to be linked tohuman and animal ailments.
Spain and Sweden, for example, said the required evidence for a chemical to be classified as an endocrine disruptor was too high and thus not cautious enough.
On the other side, the U.K. and Poland favor an option long backed by the industry, requiring the issue of the chemical’s potency to be included in the criteria. Potency defines the power of a chemical to affect the hormone system.
In comments dated August 25, Germany asked the Commission for clarification on whether the Commission had the mandate to change the wording in an exception included in the pesticide regulation from “negligible exposure” to “negligible risk” when it comes to allowing chemicals on the market, even if they are endocrine disruptors. That echoes a concern by some NGOs and the European Parliament, who raised the issue with the EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis.
Spanish officials said that while the Commission is legally required to establish scientific criteria for EDCs, it “has no power to amend the regulatory consequences,” referring to the change in the wording of the exception.
“We are not satisfied with the wording of the Commission, too rigorous in the level of evidence required for identification of the endocrine disruptors and more permissive in the proposed exemptions,” the country’s agriculture and health ministries wrote in a joint document dated August 10.
Both Germany and Italy criticized wording in the Commission proposal requiring chemicals to be known to cause an adverse effect on humans to be classified as endocrine disruptors.
“In practice, it introduces a reverse burden of proof and will certainly limit the number of substances to be identified as endocrine disruptors,” the Italian National Center for Chemical Substances wrote in its comments to the Commission.
On the other hand, the U.K. says it would have liked to see the issue of potency included in the criteria. They, however, back the Commission on other elements of its proposal.
“Regulating on the basis of a single category of known endocrine disruptors, underpinned by evidence based on adverse effects and mode of action, will provide greater levels of certainty for regulators and for businesses” seeking to place biocides and pesticides on the market, the U.K. said in comments submitted in mid-July.
The Polish Agriculture Ministry worried that the criteria proposed by the Commission would cause the withdrawal of 20 percent of the pesticides products registered in the country. “It makes adoption of the criteria in the proposed form highly problematic due to adverse economic effects for Polish agriculture,” it said in a letter to the Commission.
http://www.politico.eu/pro/european-commission-pitch-on-endocrine-disruptors-takes-hits-from-all-sides/
-
Hormone Disrupting Chemicals are not a Global Health Scourge
Oct 28, 2016 | KZIM KSIM Podcasts
By Julie Gunlock
Hormone Disrupting Chemicals are not a Global Health Scourge with the project Director of Culture of Alarmism at the Independent Women’s Forum
Listen to Podcast Here: http://www.kzimksim.com/podcast/coffee-break-on-kzim-ksim-10-28-16-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-are-not-a-global-health-scourge/
-
IARC Scientists Defend Glyphosate Cancer Link; Surprised by Industry Assault
Oct 31, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Carey Gillam
Don’t mess with Monsanto Co. That is the message being delivered right now by the agrichemical industry as it makes a full-fledged assault on the team of international cancer scientists who dared to declare cancerous connections to the widely used herbicide called glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand.
Industry swagger is on full display in Washington where Monsanto and its friends at CropLife America are driving efforts to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) after IARC scientists declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in March 2015. The industry is also demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency fully repudiate the IARC classification and green-light continued use of glyphosate herbicides, which spell billions of dollars in sales annually to Monsanto and the agrichemical brethren.
The EPA has been evaluating glyphosate as part of a re-registration review process for more than five years, and was initially expected to complete that review last year. The EPA then said it would complete the review by the end of 2016, and now says it will be 2017 before it offers a final report. The work has been drawn out as the EPA wrestles with the IARC classification, which has both legal and economic implications for the agrichemical industry. The EPA had planned to hold four days of public meetings - over industry objections- to examine scientific research on glyphosate. But the industry, which deemed the meetings “unnecessary” and “inappropriate,” successfully derailed those Oct. 18-21 public meetings by challenging certain scientists appointed by EPA to an advisory panel. The EPA has “postponed” the meetings and has yet to reschedule.
Now, industry ally U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith is taking EPA officials to task for engaging with IARC on glyphosate concerns, demanding that EPA instead rely on the “sound science” that the industry promotes. Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, accuses IARC of playing an “activist role” and EPA officials, of aiding that effort. In an Oct. 25 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Smith complained of “constant delays” by EPA in completing the re-registration of glyphosate, and demanded that EPA officials appear before his committee to explain themselves. Monsanto, which is fending off lawsuits by people who claim Roundup gave them cancer, has also been demanding IARC members turn over documents related to their work. The company has labeled the IARC findings as “junk science,” and claims the IARC members are part of an “unelected, undemocratic, foreign body.”
It’s all a bit overwhelming for the members of the IARC working group, who are not accustomed to assaults on their expertise. After all, these scientists that assembled for the glyphosate review were among the elite, routinely seen as independent experts, pulled from top institutions around the world. Frank Le Curieux, senior scientific officer at the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, Finland, and an expert in toxicology, was part of the team. So was French scientist Isabelle Baldi, who holds a Ph.D in epidemiology with a research specialty in environmental toxicology, and works as assistant professor in occupational epidemiology and public health at Bordeaux University. Experts also came from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The Netherlands, and Nicaragua. Several came from the United States, including Matthew Martin, a biologist with the EPA’s National Center for Computational Toxicology who received awards for his work with toxicity data.Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute, served as chairman of the IARC team. Blair has specialty knowledge in research that focused on evaluating cancer and other disease risks associated with agricultural exposures, as well as chemicals in the workplace and the general environment. He has received numerous awards over his career and has served on many national and international scientific review groups, including for the EPA. He has also authored more than 450 publications on occupational and environmental causes of cancer.
The fact that Monsanto and the agrichemical industry are coming after them has left them stunned. IARC issued a statement last week saying some also felt “intimidated” by the industry actions.
“We were not expecting this strong reaction and what happened,” said Francesco Forastiere, head of occupational epidemiology at the Lazio Regional Health Service in Italy who participated in glyphosate working group for IARC. “We were doing our job. We understood there were other issues... economic consequences. But none of us had a political agenda. We simply acted as scientists, evaluating the body of evidence, according to the IARC criteria.”
Another working group member, Australian epidemiologist Lin Fritschi, who has been part of other IARC classifications, said the team’s work was solid and the industry attacks on the team’s credibility are unwarranted.
“I definitely wasn’t expecting anything at all,” said Fritschi, who specializes in the occupational causes of cancer and holds the “distinguished professor” title at Curtin University in Australia. “We were independent and just looked at the science. We had strict rules on what was admissible and came to a conclusion based on that evidence. We made the right decision based on the evidence.”
The team was not charged with doing new research, but rather with reviewing research already conducted, trying to determine how the various findings added up. The members analyzed older research as well as more recent studies, weighed the methods used, the consistency of results and the levels of adherence to research standards. There were numerous animal studies to pore over, but fewer looking at glyphosate connections to health problems in humans. The evidence with respect to cancer in humans came from studies of exposures, mostly in agricultural settings. The group determined that the best research showed a distinct association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and glyphosate. The team also noted that there were ties linking glyphosate to multiple myeloma, but the evidence for that disease was not as strong as the evidence tying glyphosate to NHL, the group determined.
The team also evaluated several studies that showed animals developed rare kidney tumors and other health problems after exposure. Those studies combined to provide “sufficient evidence” of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity in laboratory animals, the IARC team found. On top of that, the IARC team concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress from glyphosate, including findings of DNA damage in the peripheral blood of exposed humans. The team also said it was noteworthy that in one study, people showed chromosomal damage after glyphosate formulations were sprayed nearby.
Overall, IARC concluded that there was “limited evidence” that glyphosate can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and “convincing evidence” that glyphosate can cause cancer in laboratory animals. The conclusion would have been for “sufficient” evidence of cancer problems for humans, but for one large U.S. study run by the federal government that did not show connections between cancer and glyphosate, Forastiere said.
The team ultimately decided the weight of the evidence was not strong enough to say glyphosate was definitively carcinogenic, but there was more than enough evidence for the caveat “probably” carcinogenic.
Blair, Forastiere and the others said after the fact that they felt quite comfortable with the work of the IARC team and proud of the thoroughness of what was a complicated undertaking.
“We should all minimize our use as much as possible,” said Fritschi, “The people most at risk are people who use glyphosate a lot, such as farmers and gardeners, and they are the ones who should try and reduce their use,” she said.Monsanto and other industry players can’t afford for that kind of talk to take root; which is exactly why we’re seeing these extraordinary efforts to undermine the scientists and push EPA to ignore cancer concerns. One letter in particularsubmitted by CropLife America to EPA this month shows the depths of the industry’s efforts to rein in EPA’s probe of glyphosate. CropLife told the EPA it was out of line for proclaiming a need for independent research on formulated glyphosate products - such as Roundup. The agency said in September it has been collaborating with the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop a research plan to evaluate the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity. But apparently, it neglected to get industry permission.
“We also question why EPA would collaborate and develop a research program with the National Toxicology Program without input from the registrant,” CropLife wrote. “Should data be required to address specific questions relevant to the registration or reregistration of a product, the registrant would be the appropriate source of those data.”
The industry message to EPA is loud and clear: Independent research and international scientific findings should not take precedence over protection of a multi-billion-dollar agent like glyphosate. The public can only watch, wait, and hope that the EPA doesn’t listen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/iarc-scientists-defend-gl_b_12720306.html
-
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
Pennsylvania, the No. 4 coal-producing state in the United States, is working away at options to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
And even if the rule fails to survive legal challenges, the state is well on its way to meeting the Clean Power Plan's goal of cutting its power-sector carbon emissions rate by 33 percent by 2030.
"I know things appear to have slowed down because of the court challenge," said Gladys Brown, chairwoman of the Public Utility Commission.
But that's just appearances, she said in an interview. "We continue to work" with the state Department of Environmental Protection and the PJM Interconnection, the region's grid operator, she said.
The PUC had dedicated four staff members to work with the DEP to answer questions and address the regulator's concerns, which center on ensuring that any compliance plan would ensure electric reliability and that the state continues to have a diversity of fuel sources.
Brown is especially concerned that the EPA rule does not adequately value carbon-free nuclear generation, she said, noting that her state ranks second in the nation in terms of nuclear generation capacity with five nuclear plants.
As of this year, coal has fallen to the No. 3 source of energy generation, with natural gas taking the top spot, followed closely by nuclear.
Her concerns about nuclear are shared by John Hanger, a former DEP secretary and a onetime member of the state PUC.
"One problem on the horizon is potentially nuclear plant retirements," he said.
"Depending on how many you're talking about, that could absolutely reverse some of the gains that have been made" in terms of the state slashing its carbon emissions, Hanger said.
"It's a very real issue," in both PJM and the state, he said, where "a couple of assets are on the edge."
Low natural gas prices have driven down electricity prices in markets such as the PJM. As a result, several nuclear plants have shuttered and several others are in danger.
"It's the story of natural gas replacing coal; it's the story of renewables advances and energy efficiency advances," Hanger said.
"I think it's fair to say that the Clean Power Plan is easy to meet in Pennsylvania, and it's not a big stretch at all," he said.
"It's very easy for the state to do it. We're almost at 2030 levels now in terms of emissions. We're getting close. We're already at the 2025 level. We've gone from basically 134 million tons down to 106 million tons in 2014. We have to get basically to 90 million tons" under the EPA rule, Hanger said. "And that decline has accelerated in 2015 and 2016."
Waiting for 'shoes to drop'
"In terms of formal work on the Clean Power Plan, it continues in Pennsylvania," Hanger said, although the pace has slowed while stakeholders wait for "two big shoes to drop" — the presidential election and the likely Supreme Court review of the EPA rule.
"I suppose if the Supreme Court were to rule against the Clean Power Plan or if Donald Trump is elected president, the Clean Power Plan as we've known it is dead," Hanger said, although he said he thinks both are unlikely.
"The uncertainty around the presidential election gets removed in a few days," he said. "If Clinton is elected, there's going to be a Clean Power Plan one way or another.
"And it's going to be with the wind at the back of the effort because the changes we see in the marketplace are very favorable to driving down carbon emissions," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/31/stories/1060045029
-
Online Activists Threaten N.D. Governor, Pipeline Workers
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
While an "uneasy peace" has settled over the construction site of the contested Dakota Access oil pipeline today, activists took the fight online with threats to North Dakota's Republican governor and workers on-site.
The group Anonymous released a video threatening to release "docs" that members say show Gov. Jack Dalrymple's financial connections to Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP's oil pipeline project if he doesn't call off the National Guard and workers don't stop construction.
"You're set to make millions on the pipeline, and Native Americans in the area are disrupting the project," a glowing green mask, the symbol of Anonymous, said in the video. "Send the National Guard home and send the pipeline workers home, or we will release all the documentation of the workers."
The video includes a threat to release private information of pipeline workers. "Any employees of the pipeline watching this should quit," it said.
Energy Transfer Partners and the governor's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Dakota Access pipeline would carry as much as 570,000 barrels of oil over 1,100 miles from North Dakota to Illinois.
Dalrymple last week joined the Republican governors of Iowa and South Dakota in urging the Army Corps of Engineers to immediately grant the company an outstanding easement and let construction proceed (E&ENews PM, Oct. 27).
The governors noted that Energy Transfer Partners has already obtained approval in all three states to build the $3.78 billion project and that the pipeline is about 75 percent complete.
Clashes last week between pipeline opponents and law enforcement in North Dakota escalated, leading to more than 140 arrests and the report of an armed standoff (EnergyWire, Oct. 28).
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Friday called on the White House to intervene and protect members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
In a show of solidarity, thousands of Facebook users virtually "checked in" at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation to raise awareness and jam the Morton County Sheriff's Department.
Protesters claim that the department, which was not immediately available for comment, is trying to use the popular social media site to track protesters.
"The viral check-ins are raising the profile of the protest because it's received almost no mainstream media coverage," said one organizing post.
CNN this morning said the mood at the Standing Rock camp was "prayerful" and that an "uneasy peace" had settled on the site as protesters vowed to hunker down through the winter to fight the pipeline.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/31/stories/1060045062
-
Oil Patch States May Have Seen the Last Boom
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
First in a series.
When lawmakers filed into the Capitol here in August, they were repeating a familiar scene.
North Dakota was in the throes of an oil bust after a six-year drilling boom that transformed parts of the state. The price of oil had been in free fall, state revenue was down almost one-fourth and the state's primary savings account was almost empty. Now they had assembled for a three-day special session to decide the winners and losers. Would they cut the road budget? Schools? Nursing homes?
It could have happened in any state capitol in the oil patch, in any of the downturns that have plagued the oil business since its inception.
Just maybe, a few of the legislators were praying for the next oil boom, the way their fathers and grandfathers did.
But this oil bust could be different. A growing body of research says that changes in the international oil market, rapid advances in wind- and solar-powered generation and regulations aimed at curbing climate change may hold down the price of oil and natural gas for years or even a decade.
That means the fracking-fueled bonanza that pushed American oil production to levels not seen since the early 1970s may be remembered as more than just another high point for the states that depend on the oil industry. It could be the last oil boom.
"We've actually hit a point that this isn't your daddy's kind of boom and bust — it's a new set of factors that are influencing demand," said Shanna Cleveland, a manager of the carbon asset risk program at the nonprofit group Ceres.
A lot of people disagree with the idea. And even among those who agree, there are different ideas about how a long-term decline in oil demand could happen and, crucially, when it could happen.
But if the predictions are accurate, it could mean that even though oil prices are recovering, they may not hit the $100-a-barrel peaks they reached just two summers ago. And it could extend the economic pain that's already rippling across a half-dozen states dependent on taxes on oil production, from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico.
In North Dakota, a handful of small towns took on hundreds of millions in debt to pay for schools, parks and other projects. A prolonged oil bust could send those communities into a downward spiral in which a dwindling population is forced to pay for boom-time debts with a shrinking tax base.
Wyoming had to cut funding for drug treatment programs, at a time when more people need them because of the state's shrinking economy.
And Alaska, which is more dependent on the energy sector than any other state, has cut its cherished annual "dividend" that each resident receives annually from the state.
The boom
As oil booms go, the one that lasted from 2008 to 2014 was a doozy.
Oil production in the United States had been dropping steadily for more than 25 years when a handful of companies began experimenting with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to see if they could do with oil what they'd done with natural gas.
A lot of the same companies had already made a bundle fracking for natural gas, so much so that they had created a surplus and driven down the price.
Fracking for oil worked, too. Companies found huge reserves of crude trapped in rock beneath the old oil fields in Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas.
U.S. oil production, which slidfrom 9.6 million barrels a day in 1971 to 5 million barrels a day in 2008, started to rise again. By 2014, the United States was producing 8.8 million barrels a day, and policymakers started talking about a 20-year oil boom that would be immune to price swings.
The boom upended North Dakota's slow-but-steady oil industry. The state pumped between 100,000 and 200,000 barrels a day from the 1980s to the early 2000s. But by the end of 2009, a dozen or more companies were fracking the Bakken Shale formation, and the state was pumping double that amount. By 2014, production had grown nearly tenfold.
So many drilling crews poured into North Dakota that they were forced to live in hastily erected trailer parks known as "man camps."
There were a lot of growing pains. The four most productive counties in the state covered an area larger than New Jersey. When the boom started, about three-fourths of the roads in the oil patch were unpaved gravel tracks designed for farm traffic (EnergyWire, Oct. 9, 2013).
North Dakota has one of the highest taxes on oil production in the country, and the state coffers filled up with cash. The state Legislature doled out a couple of funding "surges" to the oil-producing counties to help pay for roads and other infrastructure.
When state's output reached 1 million barrels a day in 2014, the North Dakota Petroleum Council threw a party in Tioga, where one of the first Bakken Shale wells was drilled. Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple attended and 3,000 guests ate boiled crawfish and shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico, The Bismarck Tribune reported.
The bust
By the fall of 2014, a string of decisions made half a world away had brought the party to a halt. Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, ratcheted up its production in September and October, pushing down prices around the world.
Suddenly, there was more oil flowing around the world than was being consumed, and the price began to fall. To keep the price from falling further, someone needed to cut back on production, and all eyes turned to OPEC.
But on Thanksgiving Day in 2014, the oil ministers from the 12 OPEC nations emerged from a meeting in Vienna and announced they couldn't reach a deal to control production. The price of West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark grade of crude for U.S. producers, fell below $70 a barrel the next day and kept falling through 2015.
Almost two years later, oil companies and a lot of legislators in North Dakota still view the drop in prices as a blip.
Folks in North Dakota are optimists — their grandparents in many cases were immigrants who stepped off a train and built communities on the frontier, said Vicky Steiner, a state representative and former executive director of the North Dakota Association of Oil Producing Counties.
And they have faith in the determined oilmen who found oil in places that bigger companies had written off. Chief among them is Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources Inc., the state's biggest oil producer. In January, when the price oil dropped below $30, Hamm predicted oil would nearly double by the end of the year (EnergyWire, Jan. 15).
"I have a lot of confidence this is short term, and even if it's two or three years we can wait it out," Steiner said. "Harold Hamm says it'll $60 by December, and that's what I choose to believe today."
Peak demand
Outside North Dakota, a lot of economists and policy watchers — not to mention a few oil executives — are starting to think differently.
Many of them see the Saudi decision as one of several interlocking trends that could change the international oil market. The theory, often dubbed "peak demand," is that new technology and new types of energy will replace oil and gas the same way they've replaced coal in some developed nations.
First, a record amount of solar- and wind-powered generation has been installed around the world, and the cost of renewable power is falling so fast that those sources could soon be cheaper than coal or natural gas. As much as two-thirds of the new electric generating capacity around the world in the next 25 years — $7.8 trillion worth — will come from wind, solar and hydrodynamic power, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in June.
At the same time, demand for electric cars and battery storage systems will rise as they become cheaper, which will also cut into demand for fossil fuels, BNEF reported.
The head of China's state-run power grid, Liu Zhenya, told a conference of energy executives in February that his country sees renewable power sources as "a fundamental solution" (EnergyWire, Feb. 26).
Meanwhile, the United States, China and other countries are looking for ways to cut their emissions from oil, gas and coal as they try to meet the commitments they made in last year's climate change talks in Paris (ClimateWire, Dec. 12, 2015).
While it'll take years for those emissions cuts to affect demand for oil, they could create a "green paradox" in which low-cost producers like Saudi Arabia try to grab a bigger share of the market, at the expense of high-cost producers like those in North America, said Jim Krane, a fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.
The Saudis may have made their move already. In addition to ramping up production, Saudi Arabia's new oil minister announced in April that the kingdom would sell shares in its national oil company and would dedicate much of its oil revenue to a huge new sovereign wealth fund. Saudi Arabia's King Salman has said he wants to diversify the country's economy and move away from its reliance on oil production (EnergyWire, April 26).
Cleveland, at Ceres, and other researchers see Saudi Arabia's big increase in production as another sign of the country's determination to move away from the oil economy. The country's leaders appear to have realized that the combination of renewable energy and climate change regulation could transform the oil business, and they are trying to "monetize" their oil reserves over the next few years.
Wild cards
How the trend could play out is anyone's guess. Cleveland said there could be downward pressure on oil prices for the foreseeable future, although it's hard to predict how much.
And there are numerous wild cards. A war in the Middle East could send oil prices back through the roof. The U.S. elections in November could lead the country to change its policy on climate change, too. The Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, has called climate change a hoax, and oil companies are giving heavily to Republican congressional candidates (EnergyWire, Oct. 17).
Mark Muro, who studies state and local government at the Brookings Institution, predicted it could take a while for the forces of peak demand to flatten out the oil industry's peaks and valleys.
"The jig is probably not up in the next 10 years, but in the next 20 years," he said. "There's probably one more cycle."
Jason Bordoff, a former White House adviser on energy policy who now runs the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said the decline in demand could have a different effect. It could make oil prices more volatile, increasing the frequency of boom-and-bust cycles.
The debate is beginning to pop up among energy companies, though. Scott Sheffield, the CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., said at an energy conference last month that demand for oil could start to wane by 2025 (EnergyWire, Sept. 22).
Appearing at the same conference, Rice University's Kenneth Medlock replied, "There is no peak in demand."
The supermajor oil companies, who plan decades in advance because they rely on massive projects like offshore drilling, haven't changed their view. Exxon Mobil Corp., in its annual Energy Outlook, predicts that oil will remain the top fuel around the world with demand for oil and liquids rising 20 percent by 2040. Oil, gas and coal will still provide 80 percent of the world's energy in 2040, according to Exxon's outlook, despite the growth in renewables.
BP makes much the same case in its annual outlook, predicting that fossil fuels will provide 60 percent of the new energy in the world, and 80 percent of the total energy, in 2035.
The wrong direction
The short-term impact on oil-dependent states was clear this spring, though, as legislators met around the country to work on their budgets for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Louisiana's oil revenue hit its lowest point since 1999. That was one of the reasons that Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) was forced to call two special sessions of the Legislature to balance the budget with new taxes.
Two years ago, Oklahoma opted to make permanent a tax break for horizontal oil and gas wells. This spring, lawmakers faced a $1.3 billion revenue shortfall, the largest in state history.
In Alaska, oil production has been falling for years, so the drop in prices made a bad situation worse. Oil revenue came in at $1.2 billion, 90 percent below its peak in 2014. State legislators trimmed the 2016-2017 budget to $4.3 billion from about $6 billion the previous year but are still relying on a $3.1 billion transfer from the Constitutional Budget Reserve, one of the trust funds set up to invest the state's oil wealth.
In North Dakota, which operates on a two-year budget cycle, Dalrymple's administration started the biennium predicting $5.6 billion in revenue. By this February, the prediction had dropped by $1 billion. By July, the shortfall had grown to a cumulative $1.3 billion and Dalrymple was forced to call a special session to cut spending and move the remaining funds from the state's reserve account.
Meeting in early August, the lawmakers trimmed 2.5 percent from most state services, on top of a 4 percent cut approved in February. They transferred the remaining $75 million from the state's reserve account and pulled $100 million from the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. The state's public schools and human services agencies were spared from the latest spending cuts, but not from the decreases Dalrymple ordered in February.
North Dakota still has billions of dollars locked up in other reserve funds, but legislators left Bismarck worried that they'll return to find another budget shortfall when they return in January.
Muro, at the Brookings Institution, said a lot of oil-producing states may have missed a chance to diversify their economies when times were good.
The best approach for oil-dependent states would be to sock away their oil taxes in trust funds, which would even out the boom-and-bust cycle, and invest for the long-term in education and infrastructure.
Texas went through that sort of transformation after the oil bust of the 1980s and has emerged from the 2014 oil bust with fewer side effects, Muro said.
But in other states, the fiscal crunch is so dire that they cannot afford to invest for the long term.
"This is the perverse outcome of not having prepared," he said. "They will be going, at least in the near term, in the wrong direction."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/31/stories/1060045010
-
RAN: Texas Rio Grande Valley Under Threat from Natural Gas
Oct 31, 2016 | Triple Pundit (in Real Clear Energy)
By Leon Kaye
The Rio Grande Valley, at the southernmost tip of Texas along the Mexican border, is one of the fastest growing regions in the U.S. Its local economy is largely dependent on agriculture, which grows crops such as the region’s popular citrus fruit. In addition, ecotourism is also a major employer due to coastal destinations such as South Padre Island and the valley’s rich and diverse semi-tropical wildlife.
But according to the environmental NGO Rainforest Action Network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals proposed in cities such as Brownsville are a long-term threat to both the local economy and environment.
Despite the two-year slump in conventional energy prices, the LNG industry is still bullishabout its future, especially in Texas. But where energy companies see opportunities, RAN views the impact of new LNG terminals as putting much of the Rio Grande Valley’s environment — and the health of poorer local residents — at risk.
LNG is often derived from fracking. The fuel is transported along pipelines from where it was originally extracted to terminals at coastal ports. The gas is then cooled to a temperature of -260 degrees Fahrenheit (-160 degrees Celsius), allowing it to be compressed into a liquid.
NGOs, as well as business publications such as the Wall Street Journal, insist the U.S. now faces an oversupply of natural gas due to excessive extraction from fracking. In order to compensate for low energy prices, fossil fuel corporations are now looking to international markets. Enter LNG export terminals or, as RAN describes, “fracked gas terminals.”
The problem, say RAN’s researchers, is that if approved, these terminals would be constructed near neighborhoods with some of the highest poverty rates in the U.S. The results could be an egregious violation of environmental justice as these LNG terminals could cause air pollution levels to spike. The outcome, therefore, would be students missing more days of school, an increase in asthma attacks and contaminated water. The quest to expand fracking in southern Texas, in fact, even led one energy company tosuggest fracking in the middle of residential neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, what is now a mostly pristine coastline would see risks imposed on its local shrimping and fishing industries. In addition, ecotourism jobs that depend on popular recreational activities like sport fishing and bird watching would also come under threat. The NGO suggested that, in total, as many 6,600 jobs reliant on ecotourism could be negatively affected. In contrast, RAN’s study concludes that the construction of LNG terminals would create only a few hundred permanent jobs after the temporary workers needed to build these plants were terminated.
RAN also paints a portrait of intimidation tactics and power grabs by the companies proposing three southern Texas LNG terminals. RAN accused Annova LNG and Rio Grande LNG of demanding property tax breaks as well as forging dubious research partnerships with a local university. Residents responded in kind, as local press reports covered protests at public hearings held to discuss whether these proposed LNG terminals will move forward.
The RAN study estimates that if all three LNG terminals are approved, Brownsville’s port would be the scene of 5.1 billion cubic feet of gas produced every day. One year’s worth of gas exported out of Brownsville would be the equivalent of the annual carbon emissions coming from 30 coal-fired power plants. Investors in the LNG plants would profit handsomely, while local communities would pay the health, environmental and social costs.
The problem in south Texas, RAN insists, is more than a jobs-versus-environment fight. The NGO called out several of the largest American and international banks for funding the companies seeking these LNG terminals. The list includes France’s BNP Paribas, Japan’s Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. (SMBC), Switzerland’s Credit Suisse, and America’s Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.
RAN urged these banks to “stop harming local communities and shorting the climate” with these LNG investments. The alternative, in RAN’s view, is the Rio Grande Valley growing as a hub for Texas’ burgeoning clean-energy industry, as well as a region where ecotourism can continue to thrive.
“This study puts banks on notice: Fracked gas and its infrastructure is a bridge to disaster,” said Jason Opeña Disterhoft, a senior campaigner with RAN. “These projects export a commodity that is even worse for the climate than coal and represent a blatant deviation from U.S. climate commitments. Banks are in deep despite all the red flags that this industry raises, and need to stop fueling this frenzy.”
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/10/ran-texas-rio-grande-valley-threat-lng-terminals/
-
Gas Utilities Use 'Peer Pressure' to Build Cyberdefense
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A group representing the nation's major natural gas utilities is pressing its members to collaborate on cybersecurity and stay a step ahead of hackers and others who might want to damage critical energy infrastructure.
Gas utilities are joining an American Gas Association pledge to share information, train employees on best practices for securing computers and periodically review networks for vulnerabilities, according to principles outlined in an AGA brief.
It's all voluntary, said Christina Sames, vice president of engineering and operations at AGA. But companies that sign it will face "peer pressure" to keep their systems secure.
"If somebody isn't doing something, it's pretty obvious," she said.
Unlike their peers in the bulk electric power sector, the U.S. gas industry does not face enforceable cybersecurity standards. Instead, companies that distribute gas to heat homes and businesses follow guidelines from the Transportation Security Administration and National Institute of Standards and Technology's "framework" for protecting critical infrastructure.
"It's kind of the expectation of our member companies that they're moving these forward," said Sames, noting that the two agency standards hew closely to one another.
TSA can request to review a natural gas company's cybersecurity program, said Sames, and companies have also invited evaluators from the Department of Homeland Security to audit the security of their systems.
The gas industry also runs a nonprofit called the Downstream Natural Gas Information Sharing and Analysis Center designed to spread the word on the latest threats and vulnerabilities, including the recent Mirai malware that risks infecting the "internet of things."
The Washington, D.C.-based group is also cognizant of the push for greater regulation and oversight with regard to cyberthreats.
Rebecca Massello, security and operations manager at AGA, said the industry "can do so much more voluntarily, proactively, than what we hear can be done in the regulated industry."
Companies in the gas distribution business often have electric utility operations, too, some in the bulk power grid regulated by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The utilities' "supervisory control and data acquisition," or SCADA, systems have grown increasingly connected with the modern internet in recent years. That "convergence," as it's known in the industry, has had the side effect of exposing once-isolated industrial control systems to remote hackers.
While the cyber landscape is similar, securing 2.5 million miles of natural gas pipelines poses a challenge quite removed from power transmission and distribution. "For the most part, our best work is underground, unlike other utilities," said Sames. "So the approach that we take on physical security is a little different."
No cyberattacks have been known to interrupt gas or power flow in the United States. Still, the "commitment" now circulating among AGA members calls for them to "plan and prepare for the restoration of systems, facilities, and assets" in case of a real emergency.
Massello said it didn't take long to convince the AGA's board of directors to agree to the document asking utilities to commit to address the cyber issue.
"They were like, 'It's the right thing to do — why wouldn't we?'" she said. "And really, within 30 seconds, they had approved it."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/10/31/stories/1060045028
-
The Latest: Proposed Deal in Chemical Leak Suit, Judge Balks
Oct 31, 2016 | The New York Times
By Associated Press
The Latest on a class-action lawsuit filed in a 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia (all times local):
10:30 a.m.
A federal judge in West Virginia has ordered attorneys in a class-action lawsuit involving a chemical spill that contaminated drinking water in West Virginia in 2014 to revise a tentative settlement.
U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver in Charleston was critical of the proposed deal Monday. He said he's concerned it doesn't make clear that West Virginia American Water Co. won't seek a rate increase to recoup the costs of settling the lawsuit.
Copenhaver says those costs must be paid by the company's investors and stockholders, not customers who were spill victims.
Copenhaver ordered the parties to return later Monday.
In January 2014, a tank at Freedom Industries in Charleston leaked chemicals into the drinking water supply for 300,000 people, prompting a tap-water ban for days.
Lawyers for residents and businesses allege the water company didn't adequately prepare for or respond to the spill.
___
5 a.m.
A federal judge is expected to hear details of a potential tentative settlement between a water company and plaintiffs who sued over the company's handling of a 2014 chemical leak in southern West Virginia.
A hearing is set Monday in federal court in Charleston.
Anthony Majestro, who represents plaintiffs in a separate group of state court cases also being settled, had said lawyers for all sides on Friday gave Judge John Copenhaver Jr. the outline of the terms of a potential settlement.
Lawyers for residents and businesses alleged West Virginia American Water did not adequately prepare for or respond to the spill that tainted the tap water of residents in nine counties for days.
Chemical maker Eastman Chemical and plaintiffs' lawyers reached a proposed settlement Thursday for undisclosed terms.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/31/us/ap-us-chemical-spill-west-virginia-the-latest.html?_r=0
-
Feds, Mont. Pursue Yellowstone Spill Payout
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Montana and Interior Department officials are pursuing damages for a 2015 spill that contaminated the Yellowstone River with over 30,000 gallons of oil.
When Bridger Pipeline LLC's pipes burst, the river was frozen and more than 90 percent of the oil was never recovered. Downstream, 6,000 people faced contaminated water supplies.
Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) said officials had not yet determined how much money to seek but said the company was cooperating.
Last month, Exxon Mobil Corp.'s pipeline division agreed to pay $12 million for a 2011 spill into the Yellowstone (Greenwire, Sept. 21).
Both Exxon and Bridger had installed pipes mere feet below the riverbed. After the spills, each company renovated their lines to install them deeper below waterways in Montana.
"You can't quantify the damage to our wildlife in a situation like this. That resource is precious and, I would argue, irreplaceable," said Fox. "We need to do better, and I think we're headed in that direction and learning."
Federal officials have tossed out proposals that would force pipeline operators to bury their pipes deeper in the ground. But some companies in Montana have volunteered to do so.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/31/stories/1060045045
-
IETA's Forrister Discusses Growing Engagement on Wide-Scale Emissions Trading
Oct 31, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
With the Paris climate agreement officially becoming binding this week, how are discussions on creating emissions trading mechanisms developing? During today's OnPoint, Dirk Forrister, CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association, discusses the challenges facing countries as the implementation phase of the climate dialogue begins.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Dirk Forrister, CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association. Dirk, nice to see you. Always good to have you on the show.
Dirk Forrister: Great to be back, Monica. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Dirk, as the Paris agreement officially becomes binding, the next COP meeting will take place in Marrakech in November. What role will emissions trading and carbon markets play in the discussion?
Dirk Forrister: Well, it's one of the hot topics this time around because it was kind of a late surprise in Paris that an article was included on cooperation through markets. And it's the basic policy principle that's been agreed. Now we get to talk about the details of how it would work. So I think it's a big topic because that cooperation is key to keeping the cost down and key to getting even high ambitions achieved in the future.
Monica Trauzzi: We were talking a bit before the show about implementation. We're at that critical stage now of figuring out how to make it all work. You're cautious. You're cautiously optimistic. Where do you think the biggest hurdles are?
Dirk Forrister: Well, I think every country put forward its promise about what it wanted to do, and some of those promises, those pledges, had very basic levels of ambition but an offer to do more if they had access to markets and finance. And a lot of those were from the developing world, so now the key to unlocking all of that is in the more detailed policy about what happens in each jurisdiction. It's different everywhere because the governance systems are a little different, the industry setup is slightly different, so they've got to get tailor-made systems, you know, all around the world and then think about how cooperation can work across borders, so it's a big undertaking, and a lot of the action's not what's going to happen in Marrakech but happens back in those capitals.
Monica Trauzzi: The World Bank recently released a report indicating that international carbon trading could cut mitigation costs significantly. They're saying about 32 percent by 2030. How would you describe the level of engagement and momentum that exists now, post-Paris, when it comes to setting up these markets and trading?
Dirk Forrister: Well, I think for a large number of developing countries, there's an interest in how U.N. mechanisms could help them bring forward a market-based approach that has enough credibility that they could actually attract investment with it. The CDM did that under the Kyoto Protocol. It made it kind of accessible and easy for them to use. So for — there's probably 80 or 90 countries that are thinking about it in that way, but there's also quite a number of countries that are thinking about setting up their own domestic program that would have trading. An example would be Mexico that's interested in developing a program that might leak into California and Quebec. And they also were in discussions with people south of them, in Colombia and Peru and Chile, about how a regional market along the Pacific coast of South America might work. And all that's really about achieving those cost savings, allowing their industries to continue to thrive, but also meeting their climate goals and hopefully doing more over time.
Monica Trauzzi: So in the carbon markets that already exist, what are the elements that can be modified and what are those markets kind of looking at now that there is this sort of global eye on emissions trading?
Dirk Forrister: Well, it is a time when, in a number of places, we're seeing sort of the work on the details. In Europe, we're part of very vibrant discussions about the future of the E.U. ETS, how tightly the targets clamp down over the coming decade, what — they're adding a feature there of a market stability reserve that will sort of govern the supply coming into the market based on what recent performance has been. The other really exciting one that happened last week was China announcing to its industries what their individual targets were going to be, so we're now going to start to see assessments about how a China ETS will work in the future. This is happening, you know, a number of places, and I think those details around how much each industry does, what their fair share of the target is, and how they can cooperate together and also with sort of potential partners in other countries.
Monica Trauzzi: What's 2017 going to look like?
Dirk Forrister: Well, I think 2017 is when there's really pressure on negotiators to try to get rules developed (A) on basic accounting principles of how imports and exports will get reported, but also the actual mechanism that will be used internationally for certifying projects. That'll be a big deal. But also we're going to find out with the new U.S. president wants to do on climate change, and there's all the eyes of the world are upon United States and hoping that the U.S. is able to meet its — the minimums that it's offered, but maybe even the higher levels of targets that have been proposed.
Monica Trauzzi: Very dynamic time. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Nice to see you as always.
Dirk Forrister: Thanks, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2177/transcript
-
Coal Makes Global Poverty Worse
Oct 31, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Daniel Kammen
On the eve of the Marrakech Climate Conference (COP22) the global energy and development community has an opportunity to embrace and launch a new era of clean energy and energy equity.
We all need energy.
Without affordable, reliable, safe sources of electricity which can be easily accessed, people remain stuck in poverty. There aren’t lights in homes for children to do homework nor energy for economic opportunity and advancement. Health clinics don’t have refrigerators for storing store vaccines. The ambitions of would-be entrepreneurs are stifled by an electricity-free environment.
Over a billion people lack such access to electricity. But clean energy innovation and progress over the past two decades means very simply that coal isn’t the cheapest or most reliable source of energy. Building coal-fired power stations and supplying the energy generated isn’t even the simplest option. And coal is responsible for hundreds of thousands of premature deaths around the world each year. The open secret is that the key to ending poverty isn’t coal; it’s renewable energy.
Coal has been found out. Even its advocates acknowledge the devastation it causes to health and the destruction it wreaks on the environment. Yet they still pretend that coal lifts “entire populations from poverty”. It doesn’t. They argue that it’s a sustainable solution to the problem of energy poverty. It isn’t.
The problem is that out of date, simplistic, thinking still makes a case for coal. Instead, let’s take a quick history lesson. Change is slow, and sadly even today coal has been cited as a magic fuel which has powered poverty reduction in China over recent decades. The reality is that two-thirds of the people who escaped extreme poverty over recent decades in China did so through reforms to agriculture and the wider economy that took place between 1981 and 1987 – before industrialization and the large-scale growth of coal. Even accounting for the expansion of coal in the 1990s, it wasn’t until after the millennium – when most of the poverty eradication in China had already occurred – that the real explosion of coal consumption took place.
The same is true in southeast Asia, in the Balkans and in East Africa – all locations where my laboratory, RAEL is active in partnership with local organizations -- but where the same economic and health fundamentals apply. The work my laboratory has done documents clear evidence of the superiority of distributed clean energy in each region.
Coal’s role in lifting people out of poverty continues to be exaggerated. But to access energy, people have to be able to reach it. Some 84% of those living in energy poverty reside in rural areas. Extending grids to these communities in the near term is a pipedream punctured by price and political will (or lack thereof). The ‘fortunate’ few who live closer to infrastructure can rarely afford connection costs or are thwarted from accessing power by sector mismanagement. Coal does not fix these problems, it more often exacerbates and extends them. By contrast, an integrated strategy that extends grids where cost-effective and invests in mini-grids and individual family “pay-as-you-go” energy solutions has proven to be socially progressive, equitable, and environmentally sustainable.
The health implications of coal are enormous. Indoor pollution from unventilated cooking with fuelwood and charcoal is the fourth-largest cause of mortality worldwide and has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. The coal industry’s consumption and pollution of water resources devastates communities and smallholder agriculture.
And coal contributes to that elephant in the room: climate change. Scientists worldwide and experts in international development from organizations such as CAFOD, Christian Aid and the Overseas Development Institute and in my laboratory have detailed how the changing climate is pushing people further into poverty in a new report, Beyond Coal. Only one-third of planned coal-fired power stations would surpass the 2 degree C warming limit established by the Paris Climate Accord. The world can’t burn coal without frying the planet.
Today there simply are better options for lifting people out of poverty than coal. The explosive growth in mini-grids, and off-grid renewable energy solutions such as solar power, wind, and micro-hydropower.
The cost of renewable energy has plummeted – by 80% since 2009 for solar power – making it much cheaper than fuels, such as kerosene, relied on by people who lack more reliable energy. These costs continue to fall as investment and capacity increase. It has been acknowledged from South Africa to India that, besides the price of pollution, renewable energy is cheaper than importing coal or building new plants.
It’s also quicker to set up off-grid or mini-grid systems powered by the sun or the wind than to construct coal power stations. Once in place, the operating costs of renewable energy are almost non-existent. When the sun isn’t shining or the winding blowing, power sources such as hydropower, geothermal or natural gas provide a better back-up than the inefficiency of ramping up and down of coal plants. This alleged Achilles’ heel is diminishing with smarter management of grids and improvements in energy storage capacity and competitiveness.
Coal lobbyists’ last trump card is jobs. The sector has been a significant employer since industrialization and is embedded into the culture of many communities. This should not be dismissed. Indeed, this is why support must be given to the renewable energy industry, which already employs more people worldwide than coal (9.4 million people compared to 7 million). My laboratory has documented the jobs benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy in ourclean jobs project where we find that clean energy and efficiency investments outpace jobs from coal dramatically.
The question is whether we work towards a just transition in the workforce or await the inevitable market-induced catastrophe for communities as coal becomes consigned to history. This is why governments must stop bailing coal out with taxpayers’ money. Renewable energy offers the road out of poverty. Coal condemns people to it.
Daniel Kammen is a Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley where he is also the founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. Kammen serves as a Science Envoy for the U. S. State Department. Twitter: @dan_kammen
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/303392-coal-makes-global-poverty-worse
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested