Drilling Spills and Hydrofracking

The one-year anniversary of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig and subsequent massive oil spill was marked by yet another drilling accident. This time, the accident occurred at a drilling site for natural gas in Pennsylvania when a well blew out and started spewing toxic fluids.

Chesapeake Energy officials said a piece of equipment on the well failed.

Now a major response is underway to stop the leak of frack fluid and get control of the well.

Water is gushing from the earth at the Chesapeake well pad.  It has been all hands on deck to put a stop to the leak of fracking fluid that, according to company officials, spilled thousands and thousands of gallons into nearby land and waterways.

"We've been able to limit the flow. We're still doing additional work to regain full control," said Brian Grove of Chesapeake Energy. He added there is no telling yet how much of that extremely salty water mixed with chemicals and sand has impacted the nearby Towanda Creek, but no gas has escaped into the air....

Officials with DEP said the flow of frack fluid has stopped flowing into the nearby creek and its tributary.

Public safety officials in Bradford County said they, along with DEP, will continue to monitor the Towanda Creek which empties into the Susquehanna River. According to officials with Chesapeake Energy, the fluids that spilled all over farm land and into the creek have a very high salt content and contain numerous chemicals used to fracture the rock below.

Environmentalists have been warning about the potential dangers of fracking for quite some time. "Fracking" refers to a drilling process formally called "hydraulic fracturing," which involves injecting fluids into underground rock formations to break up the rocks and release the natural gas they contain. The major concern is that the fluids used for fracking – which often contain toxic chemicals – may leak from gas wells into aquifers and render the groundwater undrinkable for the people who depended on it. Another concern is that fluids from such wells are diverted to wastewater treatment plants, even though the plants are not equipped to process and remove the toxic chemicals found in fracking fluids. Only some of these chemicals are known to the public due to a lack of transparency on the part of energy companies. According to a recent government report:

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.

As yesterday's incident illustrates, blowouts and the resulting contamination of farmland and watersheds are serious concerns as well.

The blowout occurred just as Pennsylvania was beginning closer oversight of the fracking operations.

The DEP and the industry appear to have been influenced by complaints from public water suppliers in Western Pennsylvania, which say they are challenged by bromide levels whose concentrations have increased concurrently with the drilling boom.

The bromides themselves are not a public health risk - they account for a tiny part of the salty dissolved solids that create an unpleasant taste in water at elevated levels.

But bromides react with the chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water to form brominated trihalomethanes (THMs), a volatile organic compound. Studies have linked the prolonged ingestion of high levels of THMs to several types of cancer and birth defects.

Officials at several water authorities in the Pittsburgh area say their facilities have failed several tests for trihalomethanes in recent years....

Bromides, chlorides, and some heavy metals occur naturally in deep rock formations such as the Marcellus Shale, the massive deposit that underlies much of Pennsylvania and parts of several surrounding states.

In other regions where shale production has taken off, operators dispose of the wastewater in deep, federally regulated injection wells. But Pennsylvania's geology is insufficiently porous to accept large volumes of wastewater.

This week's incident ought to prompt closer examination and oversight of fracking operations, whether in the form of voluntary programs like Pennsylvania's or stronger regulations. Aquifers and watersheds are too important to risk contamination.

Bird-Smart Wind Power

Wind energy holds some potential for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by our power sources, but this environmental benefit comes at a cost. Wind farms may harm birds and bats, either by creating obstacles for them to strike or by habitat degradation. The American Bird Conservancy is circulating a petition calling for mandatory standards for the wind industry to reduce the threat to birds and bats. The petition reads as follows:

Wind power is the fastest developing source of energy in the United States and can be an important part of the solution to climate change. However, wind farms can harm birds through collisions with turbines and associated structures, and through loss of habitat birds need for survival. These losses are largely avoidable. The solutions are within our reach.
I support bird-smart wind power that includes mandatory standards to minimize bird deaths and habitat impacts.
Bird-smart wind power:
1. Is carefully sited to avoid harm to birds
2. Uses best technology and best management practices to minimize harm to birds
3. Employs effective, federally reviewed and approved, site-specific, pre- and post-construction studies/assessments to assist with improved siting and operation, and to properly quantify impacts.
4. Compensates fully for unavoidable harm to birds caused by collisions with wind turbines or associated structures, and lost or degraded habitat.

If you agree with this, you can sign onto the petition here. The petition is a shortened version of ABC's policy statement on wind power, which provides more information about what they mean by each of those four points.

(via the ABA blog)

EPA to Revoke Mountaintop Mine Permit

An EPA regulator has recommended revoking the permit for a planned mountaintop strip mine in West Virginia, on the basis of wildlife impacts.

In a report submitted last month and made public on Friday, Shawn M. Garvin, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrator for the Mid-Atlantic, said that Arch Coal’s proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County should be stopped because it “would likely have unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife.”

In 2007, the Bush administration approved the project, which would involve dynamiting the tops off mountains over 2,278 acres to get at the coal beneath while dumping the resulting rubble, known as spoil, into nearby valleys and streams. The Obama administration announced last year that it would review the decision, prompting the mine owner, Arch Coal, based in St. Louis, to sue.

In its review, the E.P.A. found that the project would bury more than seven miles of the Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch streams under 110 million cubic yards of spoil, killing everything in them and sending downstream a flood of contaminants, toxic substances and life-choking algae....

The E.P.A. said the construction of waste ponds as well as other discharges from the Spruce No. 1 mining operation would spread pollutants beyond the boundaries of the mine itself, causing further damage to wildlife and the environment.

Arch Coal had proposed to construct new streams to replace the buried rivers, but the E.P.A. said they could not reproduce the numbers and variety of fish and plant life supported by the indigenous streams.

The company plans to sue, so this may not be the last word on the subject.

Wind Farm Proposed for Puerto Rican IBA

A wind farm has been proposed for a site within Puerto Rico's Karso del Sur Important Bird Area.

The windfarm was proposed for construction on forested land that is both ecologically fragile and exceptionally important for biodiversity. This karst limestone area has been designated by the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources as a 'High Conservation Priority' and borders the Guánica Biosphere Reserve.

The forests and shrubland in this IBA are home to 19 (of the 23) restricted-range species found on Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, including the largest known population (c.20% of the total) of the Critically Endangered Puerto Rican Nightjar Caprimulgus noctitherus. The IBA also supports a regionally significant breeding population of Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii. Small numbers of Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis nest on Don Luis Cay—one of the few nesting locations for the species in Puerto Rico.

"There are alternative and better locations for wind projects in Puerto Rico. However, the proponent refused to negotiate an exchange of development rights to relocate the project to an appropriate place", said SOPI spokesperson, Luis Silvestre.

The location for this particular development was deemed inappropriate. It was expected that construction and operation of the industrial windfarm would have caused significant negative impacts to the area's unique habitat and biodiversity. The area is also home to Puerto Rican Crested Toad Peltophryne lemur and the endemic Blue-tailed Ground Lizard Ameiva wetmorei. The IBA has more than 700 plant species including the Critically Endangered Woodbury's stopper Eugenia woodburyana, Vahl's boxwood Buxus vahlii and Puerto Rico manjack Cordia rupícola, and the Endangered lignumvitae Guaiacum officinale and Stahlia monosperma.

I support wind energy when thorough environmental reviews are completed and turbines are sited and operated in ways that cause the least amount of damage to birds and other wildlife. This project is an example of exactly what not to do. Wind farms can harm wildlife in two ways. One way involves bird collisions with the blades or turbine towers; this is probably the best known danger. In addition, bats may be harmed by changes in pressure around the blades.

The second way wind farms harm wildlife is through the destruction and degradation of their habitats. Land needs to be cleared for the turbine site and for roads to transport construction material to the site. What wildlife habitat then remains around the site will be more vulnerable to invasive species and less able to support species that specialize in the habitat that was cleared.

Clearing land and building an industrial wind farm in an Important Bird Area should be out of the question, especially in an area with so many sensitive and restricted-range species. Putting turbines in a bird-rich area like an IBA is likely to result in too many collisions, some of which will be critically endangered birds like the Puerto Rican Nightjar. Many of the species that inhabit the IBA are classified as critically endangered or endangered precisely because their range is so small. Any further range reductions that occur because of destroyed habitat will hasten the species' slide towards extinction. For those reasons, building a wind farm at sites like this will not be appropriate. I am glad to see that the Planning Board of Puerto Rico has blocked the site permit.

Legislation to Create New National Monuments

Yesterday Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill that would change the protected status of millions of acres of federal land. Some areas would become more protected while others would lose some protections. You can see a rundown of the changes and involved sites at Coyote Crossing.

The act seems to be at least partly directed at the solar and wind industries, as it would block controversial energy developments in some parts of the Mojave Desert.

The debate over the monument encapsulates a rising tension between two goals held by environmental groups: preservation of wild lands and ambitious efforts to combat global warming.

Not only is the desert land some of the sunniest in the country, and thus suitable for large-scale power production, it is also some of the most scenic territory in the West. The Mojave lands have sweeping vistas of an ancient landscape that is home to desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, fringe-toed lizards and other rare animals and plants.

Feinstein wants to push the solar and wind projects off sensitive wilderness areas and into already disturbed land.

On Thursday, Mrs. Feinstein introduced legislation to provide a 30 percent tax credit to developers that consolidate degraded private land for solar projects. She followed that on Monday with the legislation to create the 941,00-acre Mojave Trails National Monument and the 134,00-acre Sand to Snow National Monument.

“I strongly believe that conservation, renewable energy development and recreation can and must co-exist in the California desert,” Mrs. Feinstein said in a statement. “This legislation strikes a careful balance between these sometimes competing concerns.”

Developers and environmentalists say Mrs. Feinstein has modified the monument legislation to address some of their issues. The 2.5 million acres set aside in a draft version of the monument act has been shrunk to around one million acres, allowing at least two projects to proceed. The bill also includes provisions designed to accelerate approval of renewable energy projects on federal land.

You can read more about the problems with placing solar developments in wild areas of the Mojave at the Clade, here and here.

Update: Here is more detail on the two proposed new national monuments, including a map with their locations.

The biggest component is the 941,000-acre Mojave Trails National Monument encompassing dry lakes, mountain ranges and other terrain on both sides of Interstate 40 south of Mojave National Preserve.

It also would create the 134,000-acre Sand to Snow National Monument from the desert north of Palm Springs to San Gorgonio Peak. It would include Big Morongo and Whitewater canyons and nature preserves in Pipes Canyon and along Mission Creek on the eastern flanks of the San Bernardino Mountains.

Also:

The Sand to Snow monument would help to fill in gaps between existing wildlife areas in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, providing a path for animals to move between the San Jacinto and San Bernardino mountain ranges. It would include existing wilderness around 11,499-foot San Gorgonio, Southern California's highest peak.

The area is important for reptiles, bighorn sheep and migratory birds that rely on habitats where desert transitions into forest.

The bill would expand Death Valley National Park by 41,000 acres, Joshua Tree National Park by 2,900 acres, and the Mojave National Preserve by 30,000 acres. It would protect 76 miles of waterways, including the Whitewater River and Deep Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains, and the Amargosa River and Surprise Canyon, in the Death Valley area.

The bill seems to emphasize expanding and connecting existing protected areas. However, the bill also makes significant concessions to off-road vehicle users and withdraws protections from some areas, so see the full list of changes here.

Sage Grouse and Energy Development in the Intermountain West

A new study of Greater Sage Grouse predicts that continuing energy development along current lines would lead to a 7-19% reduction in the Greater Sage Grouse population.

Sage-grouse populations are considered indicators of ecosystem health and have been closely monitored by state game and fish agencies over the past decade. The greater sage-grouse is currently a candidate for Endangered Species listing -- a result that would have far reaching implications for a wide range of industries in the region.

"Sage-grouse are useful in prioritizing conservation because their abundance is indicative of large and intact shrub-dominated grasslands, the most endangered ecosystem in North America," said study co-author, Dr. David Naugle, Associate Professor, University of Montana. "Challenges with sage-grouse are a harsh reminder that the value of small-scale conservation actions may be negated if large-scale cumulative impacts are ignored."

The new study and its detailed maps of the Intermountain West indicates that future oil and gas drilling could impact up to 9.1 million acres of sagebrush shrub lands and 2.7 million acres of grasslands -- key sage-grouse habitat.

How to balance energy production and the welfare of Sage Grouse and other grassland animals is a pressing issue. Demand for energy is constantly increasing due to population growth and new technologies, as well as economic development elsewhere in the world. Since 1950, energy demand has increased by 50%, and the same increase is expected over the next two decades. As a result, governments and the energy industry feel the need to expand energy production into areas where it would probably be better if they did not go. Drilling on the grasslands of the intermountain west is detrimental to a variety of grasslands specialists, especially the Greater Sage Grouse.

It would be better for the energy companies if they could figure out how to reduce their impact on grasslands now. If not, Greater Sage Grouse will have to be listed as an Endangered Species (it probably should have been listed already), and more severe restrictions will have to be set until the population is stable again. Unfortunately this press release does not offer any suggested solutions; I am not sure if the authors of the study do.

Verizon Sponsoring a Mountaintop Removal Rally

Verizon Wireless, which claims that "environmental stewardship is ingrained in [its] heritage," is among the corporate sponsors for a rally in favor of mountaintop removal mining, one of the most destructive forms of energy production. The rally is hosted by Massey Energy at the site of one of its mines in West Virginia. It will feature a parade of right-wing propagandists and climate change deniers.

I read about this via The Nation, which has more information about Massey Energy and its practices.

Massey Energy, the largest producer of Central Appalachian coal, holds out no pretense of pro-environmental sympathies. In a 2008 landmark settlement which it fought tooth-and-nail, Massey agreed to pay $20 million in fines to the EPA to resolve more than 4,500 violations of the Clean Water Act for polluting waterways in West Virginia and Kentucky with coal slurry and wastewater.

One of the country's foremost practitioners of mountaintop removal, a radical form of coal mining in which entire mountains are blown up, devastating hundreds of square miles of Appalachia and polluting the headwaters of rivers, the company has fiercely lobbied against Obama administration and EPA efforts to crack down on the practice.

There is contact information at the link if you're not happy about Verizon sponsoring this.

An End to Mountaintop Removal?

While the case of the Exxon Valdez, and oil production generally, is significant for its harm to the environment, I do not want to give the impression that petroleum is the only harmful energy source. Coal is just as harmful, and in some cases may be even worse than petroleum (or bitumen, for that matter). On the latter issue, we have some hopeful signs. This week, the EPA sent letters to the Army Corps of Engineers, which issues permits for surface mining, on pending permits for mountaintop removal mining operations in the Appalachians. The letters express the new administration's reservations regarding this method and suggest that environmental reviews will be more rigorous than in the past.

EPA’s letters, sent to the Corps office in Huntington, W.Va., stated that the coal mines would likely cause water quality problems in streams below the mines, would cause significant degradation to streams buried by mining activities, and that proposed steps to offset these impacts are inadequate. EPA has recommended specific actions be taken to further avoid and reduce these harmful impacts and to improve mitigation....

The Corps is responsible for issuing Clean Water Act permits for proposed surface coal mining operations that impact streams, wetlands, and other waters. EPA is required by the act to review proposed permits and provides comments to the Corps where necessary to ensure that proposed permits fully protect water quality.

Because of active litigation in the 4th Circuit challenging the issuance of Corps permits for coal mining, the Corps has been issuing far fewer permits in West Virginia since the litigation began in 2007. As a result, there is a significant backlog of permits under review by the Corps. EPA expects to be actively involved in the review of these permits following issuance of the 4th Circuit decision last month.

Mining coal via the mountaintop removal method is tremendously destructive to water quality and bird habitat. When rock is blasted from the tops of mountains to reach coal deposits, it is dumped into valleys – basically streambeds. Any chemicals present in the rock can then leach into streams and any river systems to which they connect. There is then potential for these chemicals to travel far downstream and affect drinking water and aquatic life. Coal deposits are associated with multiple toxins, including mercury. So far over 1200 streams have been affected by this mining process, according to the EPA.

Declines of some bird species, especially this blog's mascot, have been linked to the loss of Appalachian habitat. A large portion of the blame for habitat loss can be assigned to coal mining, which clears or fragments any forests covering the mountains before blasting rock. In the course of removing 470 mountains, the mining operations have deforested over 1.5 million acres. Even when the mines are "reclaimed," the resulting habitat is not a suitable replacement for the interior forest species displaced by the mine.

Because of these impacts, the EPA's announcement is welcome indeed. Regulatory agencies have long downplayed or ignored the effects of valley fills and habitat destruction when issuing permits for mining operations. Whether this announcement will result in substantive change, however, remains to be seen.

What Next for Boreal Birds?

As noted before on this blog, tar sands mining to produce oil threatens the survival of bird species that breed in Canada's boreal forest.

The report says that almost all the world's biggest oil companies are involved in tar sands extraction in an area of north eastern Alberta which supports at least 292 species of breeding birds.

Among globally threatened species are Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus and Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii (both Vulnerable), and Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi (Near Threatened). The only wild, migratory population of Whooping Crane Grus americana (Endangered) nests at Wood Buffalo National Park to the north, and migrates over the tar sands region, occasionally stopping over at boreal wetlands.

Many of the most abundant songbirds and waterbirds of the Americas also breed in the "bird nursery" of the boreal forest, and are already suffering declines because of logging, and degradation of their migration staging sites.

Energy policies that reduce dependence on petroleum – not just "foreign oil" – would do much to protect birds threatened by tar sands development.

Update: Thanks to John Carlson for this clarification in the comments: "Hi John, Just wanted to point out that the Sprague's Pipit, although vulnerable and found in Alberta, is not a boreal bird threatened by tar sands oil development, but a grassland bird threatened by conventional oil and gas development in the southern portion of the province."

More on the Tennessee Coal Ash Disaster

The flood of water and coal ash from a TVA plant is much larger than the original reports announced – over 1 billion gallons of sludge.

Officials at the authority initially said that about 1.7 million cubic yards of wet coal ash had spilled when the earthen retaining wall of an ash pond at the Kingston Fossil Plant, about 40 miles west of Knoxville, gave way on Monday. But on Thursday they released the results of an aerial survey that showed the actual amount was 5.4 million cubic yards, or enough to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep.

The amount now said to have been spilled is larger than the amount the authority initially said was in the pond, 2.6 million cubic yards.

This material is highly toxic. So far TVA officials have announced positive tests for lead and thallium, at levels that cause health problems for humans. The water also contains high levels of iron and manganese, which apparently affects taste but not safety. In addition, federal studies have reported high levels of heavy metals and carcinogens in some coal ash, but so far it is not clear if that is true of the ash at the spill site.

Offshore Wind Power Comes to New Jersey

New Jersey has approved its first offshore wind farm, following the lead of similar projects in Delaware and Rhode Island.

The proposal by Garden State Offshore Energy includes the installation of 96 turbines to produce as much as 346 megawatts of electricity, enough to power tens of thousands of houses, starting in 2013. The turbines would be arranged in a rectangle about a half-mile long by one-third of a mile wide and would be placed 16 to 20 miles off the coast of New Jersey’s Atlantic and Ocean Counties, much farther out and in much deeper water than other proposed wind farms. Deepwater Wind, which will work with P.S.E.G. to build the wind farm, said it could affordably build turbines in 100 feet of water with the same technology used to build oil and gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and other places.

Because the wind blows more reliably during the day farther offshore, the company expects to be able to more readily tap into the higher prices available on the power market at peak times. And by putting the turbines so far out, the company hopes to blunt opposition from environmentalists and residents who say that turbines diminish ocean views and damage wildlife.

“People don’t have to choose between clean energy and a clear view,” said Nelson Garcez, a vice president of P.S.E.G. Global. Mr. Garcez said the deep-water turbines would produce enough power to help the company break even in about seven years.

The next step is for Garden State Offshore Energy to seek permits from state and federal agencies to build offshore. The company will also have to get commitments from manufacturers to build the turbines, which would be assembled in New Jersey and could potentially create hundreds of new jobs.

Here is a map with the planned wind farm site.

Offshore wind has a lot of potential for easing some of our electric supply and replacing dirtier forms of power generation. On the U.S. East Coast wind resources are far better off shore than on shore, even on mountain ridges. That means that future eastern wind projects are likely to gravitate towards the coast, assuming that this project succeeds and further permits are forthcoming.

A big concern for birders is how much this and other proposed wind farms will affect wildlife, principally birds but also marine mammals and other aquatic creatures. Little research is available to answer that question, but at least one study suggests that waterbirds can avoid the turbines. For migrating birds, it remains an open question. There is an ongoing project here in Cape May that conducts regular ship-based visual surveys of birds offshore. I hope that the data they collect will influence the precise siting of the farm and turbines.

Wind Farms and Open-Country Birds

According to a British study, wind farms do not pose a serious risk for open-country passerines.

"The message on farmland specifically is that, so far, the evidence we have gathered shows that there is little effect on farmland birds," explained co-author Mark Whittingham, from Newcastle University's School of Biology.

The team carried out surveys around two wind farms located in the East Anglian fens, recording almost 3,000 birds from 23 different species.

Their data showed that the presence of the turbines did not affect the distribution of seed-eating birds, corvids or skylarks.

"This is the first evidence suggesting that the present and future location of large numbers of wind turbines on European farmland is unlikely to have detrimental effects on farmland birds," said Dr Whittingham.

Unfortunately this study does not address the potential risks for raptors and possibly waterfowl. It also found some changes in the distribution of pheasants, suggesting that related species may also be affected. Another limitation is that the surveys were conducted during the winter months. Breeding surveys may show a different picture.

That said, surveys like this are still helpful since they help narrow down the list of species we need to worry about, especially if the result holds at other times of year.

For more about wind power in a different environment, see Nick's discussion and excerpts from the DEIS for the Cape Wind project between Cape Cod and Nantucket.

No Wildlife?

Apparently the Congressional leaders who visited the Arctic NWR over the weekend have announced their predetermined conclusion: no wildlife exists in the proposed drilling area. (Never mind that their airplane was flying too high to see anything.) John at Born Again Bird Watcher has the grim details.

The area in the photos looks like potential shorebird and waterfowl habitat to me.

Coal vs. Wind in Appalachia

Via Alternet, I learned about a grassroots movement fighting proposed coal mining permits in the area of Coal River Mountain in West Virginia. The proposed permits are for surface mining (a.k.a. mountaintop removal mining) that would destroy 6,600 acres of mountain forest and replace it with a barren, rocky valley. Headwaters of several local streams would be filled with rubble from the mountain, some of which contains toxic substances that would pollute the mountain streams and any water downstream. This form of mining contributes to the declines of mountain-nesting bird species such as cerulean warblers, in addition to the more obvious damage.

Some residents have proposed building wind energy projects along Coal River Mountain's ridges instead. The website does not make clear how many turbines would be involved, or how many acres it would cover. However, it claims that their proposal would generate about 400MW per year indefinitely, as opposed to the 15 years of energy produced by a coal mine. ILoveMountains contrasts the opposing visions for the region (and Coal River Mountain Watch gives striking visual examples of just how destructive surface mining is).

One thing not discussed on either website is how a ridge-top wind farm would impact wildlife in the region. There tends to be an assumption that wildlife will benefit from wind energy, but that is not necessarily the case. A lot depends on siting, construction, and local migration patterns. How those factors interact would all need to be accounted as part of an environmental assessment and mitigation process. (Of course, I am left wondering why they do not seem to be a element of the coal mine permitting process; if coal were held to the same standards as wind, very few mines would be dug, if any.)

Despite wind energy's potential problems, it seems like it would cause less long-term environmental damage than demolishing the mountain. In this particular case I think it offers advantages. What do you think?

What Is Your Area's Carbon Footprint?

Last week the Brookings Institution released a report on carbon footprints of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Metropolitan areas have an important role to play in slowing global warming since density reduces energy use. Urban residents are more likely to have shorter driving distances, or may take public transportation, cycle, or walk. Denser housing, especially condos and apartment buildings, tend to reduce the energy needed for electricity and heating per unit.

Per capita footprints of metropolitan residents vary widely; the hundredth city has more than twice the footprint of the first. However, residents of metropolitan areas have smaller carbon footprints than the average American. The metropolitan areas with the smallest footprints are clustered on the West Coast. The largest carbon footprints are clustered in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee. I have posted the top ten and bottom ten at the end of this post; the full ranking is available here (pdf), and profiles of the 100 metropolitan areas are here (pdf). The footprints calculated for the study are not complete. They include only ground transportation and residential energy and exclude commercial energy and air travel.

The New York metropolitan area, the closest major city to where I live now, scored among the top ten. It emits 1.495 metric tons of carbon per capita, good for 4th overall. New York ranks so high primarily because of its reliance on public transit, which includes the city's subway and bus system as well as a commuter rail network that extends deep into upstate New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. It produced the least carbon from highway transportation of any metropolitan area.

Despite New York's proximity to where I live, it does not provide a good approximation of the carbon footprint of Central Jersey. The Trenton-Ewing "metropolitan area" is probably closer to reality for my county. Trenton-Ewing, ranked 63rd, emits 2.660 metric tons of carbon per capita. While the Trenton-Ewing area produces less carbon for residential energy (ranked 21st), it ranked 91st in emissions from transportation as a result of emitting more carbon per capita from automobile use than any other metropolitan area. The lack of good local transportation alternatives and low-density development make for a large carbon footprint.

The metropolitan area where I lived for eight years, Washington, DC, ranks 89th and emits 3.115 metric tons of carbon per capita. It limits transportation emissions quite well; it ranked 20th for all transportation, and 10th for freight transportation. However, it ranks dead last in residential electricity use, which increases the overall footprint. I suspect this is a result of the region's reliance on coal to generate electricity. Coal is one of the dirtiest fuels for power generation; the Mid-Atlantic has plenty of coal to burn and plenty of places to burn it. The Baltimore area also fell low in the rankings.

The report details the limitations that cities face in reducing their carbon footprints and proposes federal policy changes that could help. Overall, there needs to be better regional planning, especially for transportation networks. The report advises that the federal government promote more public transit alternatives to cars and make freight transportation more energy-efficient. In particular it advises that the Department of Transportation become modally-neutral instead of its current policy of favoring highway construction. The report also recommends ways to reduce residential energy consumption through federal housing policy and full disclosure of energy costs in the process of buying a home. If you would like to delve into the details, read the full report.

I think the suggestions provide a sound starting point for reducing metropolitan-area carbon footprints. I especially hope that the federal government implements the suggested reforms to transportation policy. Modal neutrality is long overdue.

Best Ten Carbon Footprints

1. Honolulu, HI (1.356 metric tons per capita)
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA (1.413)
3. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (1.446)
4. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA (1.495)
5. Boise City-Nampa, ID (1.507)
6. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA (1.556)
7. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (1.573)
8. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA (1.585)
9. El Paso, TX (1.613)
10. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (1.630)
    

Worst Ten Carbon Footprints

1. Lexington-Fayette, KY (3.455 metric tons per capita)
2. Indianapolis, IN (3.364)
3. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN (3.281)
4. Toledo, OH (3.240)
5. Louisville, KY-IN (3.233)
6. Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro, TN (3.222)
7. St. Louis, MO-IL (3.217)
8. Oklahoma City, OK (3.204)
9. Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA (3.190)
10. Knoxville, TN (3.134)
    

Saving Resources

Cartoon by Tom Toles.

Small Savings for a Big Loss

Red-necked Phalarope at Arctic NWR (USFWS Photo)

Drilling in Arctic NWR is one proposal that never seems to die, even with the change of leadership in Congress. Over the past decade, the stated rationale for drilling has shifted; these days the talk is about how Americans would save money by opening ANWR to the oil industry. To that end, Senator Ted Stevens requested the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration to estimate how much ANWR oil would reduce the overall price of oil.

The EIA released its report this week, with the news that ANWR wells, at peak production, would reduce the price of crude oil by $0.75 per barrel. That's barrel, not gallon. With a barrel producing 44 gallons of petroleum products, that would probably work out to a savings of about $0.02 per gallon of gasoline. Oil from the refuge would not hit the market for ten years, when those values would presumably be worth much less.

Since the cost savings was unimpressive, the report cited other reasons for opening the refuge.

However, even if drilling has a negligible effect on prices at the pump, opening ANWR to production has other positive effects for Alaska, said Philip Budzik, one of the authors of the report.

For one, it keeps the Alaska pipeline operational past 2030, Budzik said, which means that oil producers might continue to explore smaller, less lucrative North Slope prospects simply because they have a way of getting their oil out of the state. That means oil production will continue to be a mainstay of the Alaska economy.

And if ANWR oil replaces foreign oil barrel-for-barrel, that means the U.S. is importing less oil, Budzik said, and fewer oil imports mean a stronger U.S. dollar.

The likelihood of such a proposal passing is now far less than it was a few years ago, but bills and amendments to open ANWR keep getting introduced. The Senate rejected one bill to drill in ANWR last week, but a similar bill was introduced in the House this week. It would be far more useful if our senators and representatives would provide better funding for public transportation or find other ways to reduce oil consumption.

Environmentalists like me oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it is a wilderness area, one of the few places along the U.S. Arctic coastline that is not yet subject to oil exploration. The red-necked phalarope pictured above is just one of many bird species that occur at ANWR. I may never see it myself, but I, like many other birders, do see species that breed at the refuge every winter. A few such species (with their approximate migration routes) are shown in the image below.

click to enlarge

Ducks Trapped in Oil Waste

The Alberta Tar Sands mining projects have long been identified as a threat to boreal birds by the Boreal Songbird Initiative. Their requires an energy-intensive development process, which destroys habitat and releases large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Yesterday, an incident showed another type of environmental harm when 500 ducks landed and drowned in a pond filled with oil waste. Few birds survived.

"A completely oiled bird would likely sink immediately. We've recovered the ones that we could," said Steve Gaudet, a Syncrude staff member managing the recovery effort.

The company has said it normally has bird deterrents deployed on the three-kilometre-wide lake of waste from early spring until late fall. But the noisemakers and scarecrows were not in place because of the harsh winter weather last week, officials said.

The ducks involved were not identified to species in the article. A picture accompanying the article appears to be of an Anas sp. If anyone knows more about their identity, please leave a comment.

Help Stop Mountaintop Removal Mining

A bill in the House of Representatives, introduced by Frank Pallone and Christopher Shays, would end some of the worst damage from mountaintop removal mining. It already has 129 co-sponsors. Check the list and contact your representative if your representative is not already on it.

Mountaintop removal mining is an environmentally devastating way of extracting fuel for electric power plants. The practice should concern birders because it removes habitat along with the mountains.

Mountaintop removal mining is a type of surface mining found in the Appalachian portions of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee. As its name suggests, mountaintop removal mining involves removing the top of a mountain in order to uncover the coal seams contained near the mountain's surface. Explosives are used to break the mountain's rock, and massive earth-moving equipment (such as "draglines") removes the spoil - the dirt and rock that formerly composed the mountaintop. Federal law normally calls for excess spoil to be placed back in the mined areas, returning the lands to their approximate original contours. However, in mountaintop removal mining, vast quantities of spoil are carried to surrounding valleys and dumped, hence the term mountaintop removal/valley fill. Why not simply replace the fill at the mine site and return the mountain to its former state? The answer is because broken rock occupies more volume than the original mountain, and so there is always spoil left over. Also there are concerns with spoil stability in steep terrain....

One consequence of mountaintop removal mining is that streams flowing through the valleys are buried. Large mines may be surrounded by several valley fills because of the sheer volume of broken rock and spoil created. Depending on the local topography and the profile of those valleys, a single fill may be over 1,000 feet wide and over a mile long. Until recent years, excess spoil from coal mining was generally placed in the extreme headwaters of streams, affecting primarily ephemeral streams that flow intermittently only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate watershed. Because smaller upstream disposal sites are exhausted and because of the increase in mountaintop mining activity, today the volumes of a single stream fill can be as much as 250 million cubic yards. As a result, streams are eliminated, stream chemistry is harmed by pollutants in the mining overburden, and downstream aquatic life is impaired. From 1985 to 2001, an estimated 724 stream miles in West Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of Virginia and Tennessee were covered by valley fills, and 1,200 miles of headwater streams were directly impacted by mountaintop mining activities.

Many of the Appalachian ridges are covered with mature forests; any bird that depends on this type of habitat will be displaced. One of the birds threatened by mountaintop removal mining is this blog's mascot, the Cerulean Warbler, which has declined precipitously in the last 40 years. Old-growth Appalachian forests are prime breeding territory for this warbler. The central Appalachians also provide the southernmost breeding range for several northern birds, such as Golden-winged Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, and Purple Finch. Some groups are working to convert abandoned mining sites back to forest, but in the short-term substitute it is better to leave habitats intact.

H.R. 2169, the Clean Water Protection Act, would stop some of the worst abuses by banning mining companies from dumping spoil material into streams. This bill's prime effect would be to protect water from further pollution, both in the headwaters and downstream. It could also slow the rate of mountaintop removal since companies would have to find new places to dump their waste.

Again, check the list and tell your representative to support the bill.

Biofuel Airlines

The news on Sunday was full of references to Virgin Atlantic's first biofuel-powered flight from Heathrow to Amsterdam. The fuel combined 20% biofuel, which powered one engine, and 80% traditional jet fuel, which powered the Boeing 747's other three engines. The biofuel for this flight was a mixture of coconut palm and Brazilian babassu nut oil.

Richard Branson, the flamboyant president of Virgin Atlantic, presents the flight as the first step towards environmentally friendly air travel. As he says in the article linked above: "This pioneering flight will enable those of us who are serious about reducing our carbon emissions to go on developing the fuels of the future." However, there is reason to be skeptical of this sort of flight as a solution to the emissions problems associated with air travel.

First, there are problems inherent to biofuel. For some time now there has been evidence that the most common types of biofuel currently in use - ethanol and biodiesel - are net energy losers. Presumably the production process could be made more efficient in the future, but both have a long way to go before they can become sustainable from an energy perspective.

Even without the energy loss, it would take a massive amount of agricultural land to produce sufficient biofuel to replace current petroleum use. To get that land, one could either convert current agricultural land to biofuel production rather than food production, or convert other types of land into agricultural land. Taking land away from food production would result in higher prices for corn and other grains, and higher prices for food overall. Since we all need to eat, and since conversion of suburban subdivisions into cornfields is unlikely, the most likely source of production would be "unused" land - basically the forests, fields, and marshes that have not yet been paved over.

The biggest areas of agricultural expansion have been in the tropics, especially southeast Asia, Kenya, and Brazil. Tropical rainforest is being cleared for biofuel production or for other economic purposes displaced by biofuel production. A recent study concluded that conversion of native ecosystems into cropland causes more greenhouse gas emissions than are saved by the use of biofuel over petroleum. Clearing tropical rainforests exacerbates the problem, since rainforests act as a global carbon sink. Deforestation in the tropics also brings terrible results for biodiversity. The Virgin Atlantic flight used fuels derived from tropical plants, including over 150,000 coconuts.

All of these problems have led me to believe that biofuels are not sustainable as energy sources. I would be glad to change my mind if evidence were presented to the contrary, but I am afraid that the current options are not a solution to climate change.

Second, air travel would be wasteful even if biofuel could be made environmentally friendly. Powered flight requires significantly greater amounts of fuel than automobile or rail travel, and emits significantly greater amounts of pollution. While we may eventually have more efficient aircraft, we should not expect significant improvement compared to other transportation modes.

This is not to say that no one should fly, or that research into alternative fuels should cease. Research should certainly continue into any promising alternatives. As for air travel, in some cases it is the easiest way to get from one location to another, and for now it is hard to see a suitable alternative.

In the long term, the best way to reduce the environmental impact of air travel is the development of high speed rail networks for short and medium distance trips, so that airlines are reserved for long-range travel. Of course, corporations like Virgin Atlantic would not favor diverting their customers to other transportation modes, but serious reformers should not be swayed by such parochial interests.