Switchboard, from NRDC › Josh Mogerman's Blog

Of Sinkholes and Zombies: Tar sands pipeline projects are a looming horror story

2009-06-19T21:00:00Z

"They're coming to get you Barbara..."

Those are some of the last words we hear from an unfortunate victim early in "Night of the Living Dead." With creeping doom and danger sprouting up all around them, a pair of siblings finds themselves in the worst possible place---visiting the cemetery just as hungry zombies are emerging from the grave. They don't realize there is a problem until it is too late---as the mocking brother loses a chunk of his neck to the shambling undead.

There's something similar happening here in the Midwest.

Our energy sector is introducing a slow underground menace that most will not catch onto until it is too late. Bitumen. The climate changing quasi-oil mined from Canada's tar sands. I've railed about the global warming dangers of the refining of bitumen, the environmental impact of digging this stuff out of Canada's boreal forest, and the unique threat that the refineries themselves pose to what is arguably the most important natural resource this nation has in the Great Lakes...

And as refineries are retooled to process the Alberta's tarry gunk, a growing web of pipelines is sprouting up to feed them. And those pipelines come with their own set of dangers for which we are blissfully unaware.

The Canadian Consulate in Chicago, which seems to have become a 24/7 shop for marketing tar sands to Midwesterners, has been busy promoting some Enbridge Pipeline projects in the region to extend tar sands oil deeper and deeper into the Midwest and eventually the Gulf Coast. They've taken the road show to Central Illinois to convince resistant landowners that they should give the pipelines right of way through their lands. The landowners are wise to hold out.

Just take a look at the recent ruling in Wisconsin where Enbridge was fined $1.1 million for environmental infractions that, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, disrupted and degraded forests and wetlands across 14 counties.

Even better, check out this NTSB report about a 2003 Enbridge spill in Minnesota. The pipeline burst, dumping a quarter million gallons of tar sands oil in less than 15 minutes. To contain the problem before it leached into the Mississippi, officials were forced to set the spill on fire---creating a sulfur-rific black cloud a mile high and five miles wide (photo from the report below). Yum. Folks who have noted that the current Enbridge project will pass near streams and drinking water sources should take heed... And so should state regulators and local governments who are supposed to protect the public health and safety. The land owners through whose property Enbridge proposes to pipe tar sands should not be the only ones to ask the right questions about Enbridge's risky business.

Currently, an even bigger tar sands pipeline project is getting a lot of attention. A coalition of landowners, steelworkers, and enviros expressed their concerns about the massive Keystone Pipeline this week. It crosses six states on its way to the Wood River refinery (which sits literally at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers). Given the news about the project's progress, those folks are right to be concerned. It turns out that there are sinkholes opening up all around sections of the pipeline in the Dakotas where it was drilled through unstable, sandy soil. Oops, those are 30 or 40' deep sink holes that are swallowing trees whole...

The problem is growing, just like those sink holes. With the Canadians attempting to increase tar sand production five fold in the coming years, more pipeline projects are coming our way. And more holes being chomped out of the landscape and climate, just like the guy's neck in the movie.

"They're coming to get you Barbara..."

Honey Laundering: mystery bee malady may broaden an international crime wave

2009-05-26T19:56:41Z

Like millions of Americans, I spent a chunk of my holiday weekend in front of a barbecue grill. And I might have unintentionally opened myself up to a growing international crime spree in the process...

Swine flu has been the big world health story, but bees have their own worldwide illness. The mystery malady of colony collapse disorder (CCD) is taking its toll all over the world. And while there was seemingly good news that Argentinean researchers see some growth in world colony numbers, it has been more than overshadowed by much darker news. Just like H1N1, CCD is sweeping working its way around the globe with new reports of honey bee populations being quickly decimated in Japan. Press reports note that up to 50% of the country's bees have disappeared.

Researchers here and in Europe continue to wrestle with the causes of the disorder, which has resulted in record bee die-offs since it first appeared in 2006. Since then, U.S. beekeepers have been reporting losing an average of 33 percent of their hives for unknown reasons, according to government estimates. In the meantime, a bevy of sources are being investigated for links to CCD, including some pesticides.

All of this helps to explain a new international crime spree: honey laundering...

I'm not making that up.

The market share of domestic honey sales have fallen off by nearly 40% in the last two decades. And now, with fewer colonies in some parts of the country, there's a potentially lucrative opening in the already huge honey business. And unscrupulous traders have already begun cashing in by flooding the market with less-than-stellar sweet stuff. Honey cut with sugary water, or tainted with drugs (like the banned antibiotic chloramphenicol which can cause a fatal blood condition in humans), are becoming more common. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer found importers masking the country of origin for their products to avoid tariffs and slide contaminated products onto unsuspecting store shelves. Recent arrests in Chicago help illustrate the scope of the problem.

Now that grilling season has officially begun, think about your bee buddies who are responsible for the bounty at your table. Not only is honey in a lot of barbecue and basting sauces, but much of the stuff you toss on the fire was pollinated by bees. Whether it is asparagus, the alfalfa fed to beef cows, the avocados in your guac, or strawberries at desert, you probably enjoyed bee-reliant food over the holiday weekend. That shows just how important it is that we find a way to deal with CCD quickly to keep our Ag economy humming along...

But in the meantime, there's plenty you and I can do to limit the honey market for the bad guys. There has been a bipartisan effort to strengthen federal regulations around honey importation in the U.S. Senate---let your representatives know that the FDA should move these efforts forward. And, of course, its always best to buy local---ensure you are getting quality stuff by purchasing locally-produced honey (you can find local honey producers online or at buy it at local farmer's markets).

Honeybee photo by BugMan50 on Flickr

Running from a Lie: Halt Horse Butte Hazing of Bison

2009-05-15T20:35:22Z

We got word that state and federal wildlife officials were unnecessarily hazing America's last genetically wild buffalo off of a peninsula west of Yellowstone National Park in Montana yesterday. I started pulling together a blog posting and about halfway realized I had written the exact same thing last year. Almost word for word.

What a shame. I probably could have re-posted after seeing photos of 100 or so buffalo being stampeded by a helicopter flying just 20 or so feet off the ground.

And that is the problem with the way we are managing this great American resource too. Year after year, conditions change and we learn more about the issues with Yellowstone buffalo, but their management just continues to stay the same...

It seemed like things might have been moving in the right direction this year. Due in part to pressure from NRDC and other groups, the administrators of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) agreed to loosen up control techniques on Horse Butte because the area was without the two major flash points that make bison so controversial in the northern Rockies: cows and property rights.

Mostly, the buffalo fight gets boiled down to an issue of disease. Namely brucellosis. But there are no cows on the 11,000 acres of Horse Butte. So, no opportunity of transmission there, or to neighboring areas because the butte juts out into a lake which creates a barrier.
Sometimes, there are issues with property owners who do not want the big animals on their land for fear of damage or disease. Not the case on the Butte either. The owners welcome buffalo and have, in fact, asked wildlife officials to stay off their land.

But this is about way more than the way we handle wildlife on public lands---it is about a national treasure that is stuck in the middle of a pissing match over land and policy with horrific results.

So, what's the hubbub?

Ranchers and other anti-wildlife interests are putting these arguments forth as a ruse.

The state of Montana lost their brucellosis free status in 2008, despite justifying the slaughtering over 1600 buffalo to prevent the disease's transmission. Buffalo were not involved in the outbreak. There are still no documented cases of cattle contracting brucellosis from Yellowstone buffalo in the wild. In any given year, no more than 2,000 cattle range on lands where buffalo currently roam. Cattle ranchers do not even use most of the area around Yellowstone because of its harsh, winter climate. And although some Yellowstone elk and other wildlife are infected with brucellosis, they are free to wander in and out of the park, despite the fact that they could transmit the disease to cattle. This double standard makes it clear that brucellosis is not the driving force behind buffalo control.

Don't get me wrong. There are economic and disease issues that need to be worked out---but temporal and geographic barriers go a long way in ensuring that there are no problems. Instead, the scare tactics continue. And again unnecessarily imperil vulnerable buffalo mothers and calves. Just like previous years...

Why should you care?

Well, as an American taxpayer, those are your buffalo.

And they are important. Yellowstone buffalo are central to the long-term conservation of the species as they are the last herds of real American bison. The vast majority of buffalo in North America are hybrids, with some cow genes. The Yellowstone population of buffalo is the only continuously wild and free-roaming population in the U.S. They play a central role in maintaining the health of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Their movements are essential for maintaining proper soil conditions in the prairie grasslands and they provide important food for imperiled species in the area such as wolves and bears. Yellowstone is one of the last remaining intact ecosystems in the lower 48 states, replete with the full complement of species that lived here at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition. To maintain the long-term health of the ecosystem, including wide ranging species such as buffalo, we must conserve lands beyond the boundaries of the national park.

And...in a lot of cases, those are your lands that they are roaming on (much of the Butte is federal land---many of the grasslands that ranchers want to fend off bison from are also paid for with your tax dollars).

Well, in this case it's your land that they are being run off of...

Join NRDC's effort to change up management practices in the area---take action.

Baby Bison I photo by ailatan on Flickr

Canadian Author Gets a Look at Expanding Canadian Mess: Tar Sands in Indiana and Illinois

2009-05-04T21:05:43Z

Last week I had the opportunity to take a road trip to northwest Indiana. Riding shotgun was Canadian journalist and author, Andrew Nikiforuk, whose book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent is selling like hotcakes in his native country.

While he has probably seen far worse in Canada, I assumed Nikiforuk was taken aback by what he saw as we whizzed towards Gary, IN. It is a truly wondrous panorama of pollution: coal plants, refineries, steel mills, factories. They all huddle together on the southern curve of Lake Michigan in a patchwork of large-scale industrial sites.

Not long after crossing the Indiana state line we could see the unmistakable riot of pipes, machinery, and burning flares that is BP's Whiting refinery, the largest tar sands facility in the US. The smell of gasoline quickly followed. Not far down the highway we reached our destination, a refurbished bath house called the Aquatorium. Though the area beaches are still a dead ringer for Cape Cod, bath houses like the Aquatorium are remnants of a different time when northwest Indiana's beaches were a vacation Mecca, drawing tourists from around the Midwest to sunbathe and enjoy the unique living sand dunes that dot the coast. The view from the Aquatorium's beach is still gorgeous, but the hulking steel mills that loom darkly on both sides make clear the current industrial dominance in the region (see photo above). And it is a reminder that the environmental mess in the area cannot be blamed on any one facility.

But certainly one facility has drawn the ire of the public and national politicians in recent years. The drumbeat of concern over plans for increased pollution from BP has been impossible to ignore.

And that is why dozens waited for Nikiforuk in Gary, where people were eager to learn more about the source that would fuel these emissions. He described how the bitumen is mined from the tar sands in his home province of Alberta. The impact on the landscape. The scale of destruction to the forest, waterways, and air throughout the region. And the toll this has all taken on some of the nearby communities. He discussed the upgraders---facilities that take the raw tarry bitumen, separate if from the sand, and blends the mined goo with cleaner oil to make it viscous enough to pass through a pipeline. His audience stared in rapt attention, often shaking their heads with looks of concern. (Listen to this Chicago Public Radio interview to hear more in Nikiforuk's own words.)

This is because they know that the heavy metals, air pollutants, and neurotoxins that are part and parcel with bitumen is already in their community.

And more is coming.

The BP Whiting Refinery is expanding to process more of the stuff. If you read Switchboard, you know that NRDC is working with local groups to force the refinery to implement the most up-to-date environmental controls to protect the health and welfare of the folks who were sitting in that room. They all knew about the issue, but they did not know the scale. And I think they walked away with a far better understanding of what was going on around them.

Sadly, it will take longer for the rest of us to catch on. And, unfortunately, the tar sands fight is not limited to Canadians and people who live near Whiting, IN.

That's the most important part of Nikiforuk's message.

Without any public discussion or input, our energy sector is being fundamentally changed to make this stuff ubiquitous. $50 billion is being spent to expand the tar sands refining infrastructure in the United States right now. That money is being used to shift our nation's oil addiction to an even more dangerous fuel. Bitumen is not even oil---it was a long time ago, but it has since been degraded by bacteria into something far worse; a fuel source with enormously increased CO2 emissions (up to 3X those of typical petroleum products) and loads of dangerous toxins.

Without any public discussion or input, these billions of dollars will tie us to this fuel source for decades.

Without any public discussion or input we are digging our climate change hole deeper and deeper.

Think I am over-reacting? Check the coverage of a tar sands pipeline that will be running near my home town of Springfield, IL. Canada's governmental representatives in the Midwest---staff from their consulate in Chicago---had blown into town to promote the country's energy cash cow with an innocuous message: It's just a little more oil...nothing to see here. But when I talked to the writer, he admitted wondering what "oil sands" were in the first place.

As the refinery expansions and pipeline projects allow bitumen to creep further and further out, they take a little bit of pollution from northwest Indiana...and Alberta...with them.

And I assume that scares Andrew Nikiforuk way more than the drive to Gary...

Aquatorium Beach looking East - US Steel Photo via Flickr

An Arbor Day Tradeoff: new acacia and declining whitebark pine

2009-04-24T23:16:52Z

Earth Day gets all the pub, but I've always been kinda partial to Arbor Day. I mean, really, how often do you even think about trees?

This Arbor Day, features a couple of interesting tree stories:

In the journal Science a team of Swedish botanists describe a new tree species. Well, new to scientists anyway, I am sure folks in Somalia have always been well-aware of the pink flowering acacia that is prevalent throughout a war-torn, hilly 3,100 square mile region of their country.

The news is a lot less joyful around the whitebark pine tree. NRDC has petitioned to get the widespread high altitude species listed on the federal Endangered Species List as their numbers have been decimated as global warming continues to open the species up to a pair of threats for which the tree has evolved little or no defenses. Matt Brown's excellent Associated Press article this week pointed out the impacts that this phenomenon is already having on communities throughout the Northern Rockies as grizzly bears are forced to disperse farther and farther out in search of food items to replace the whitebark pine cones they had relied on previously...

...happy Arbor Day?

whitebark pinephoto by sheenjek via Flickr

The Money Boat: Coins, Climate Change and the Caribbean

2009-04-20T22:20:47Z

A friend who works for the monetary authority of a Caribbean island nation was in Chicago for an international money conference recently. Representatives from banking centers around the world had converged to discuss a crushing array of concerns---but these folks are particularly focused on cash.

Not cash in the abstract; but the bills and coins in your pocket right now.

And they are really worried about pennies.

According to my friend (and, apparently, the world's money makers), if you have coins sitting around your house, out of circulation, you are contributing to an international coin crisis which is forcing the world's mints to make more and more of them. And it is pricey. It costs 3 cents to stamp out each and every one of the world's lowliest coins---a serious losing proposition.

This got me wondering about my pal's island nation... I've been there a number of times and have never seen a mint... Where do the coins and bills come from?

Turns out, their money is minted in Europe. Bills are flown to the islands regularly. But coins are heavy and bulky, so they are floated in freighters annually.

Yup, there's a money boat.

My head was swimming... Given recent headlines, pirates seem a legitimate concern (hence the requirement that I not mention her nation's name or where the coin stamping takes place in this post)... After visions of sunken gold doubloons cleared my head, I got to thinking about some roundabout climate connections.

Two global warming tidbits popped into my head...the first being an earlier Switchboard post from Phil about the US Mint asking folks to spend their pennies so that the government would not have to expend so much in the way of energy and water resources to make new ones...and the second being discussions of the carbon footprint of ocean-going vessels (while they are very fuel efficient, they unfortunately use one of the dirtiest fuels around---listen to Rich Kassel on the subject).

My friend is starting a campaign similar to the U.S. Mint's, with public outreach that would attempt to get islanders to cash in their coins. I asked whether climate change would be part of the pitch---after all, living on an island, the global warming issue should help motivate her countrymen to stop hoarding coins?

The answer was surprising.

Despite the inordinate impact that climate change would likely have through sea level rises on a low lying island chain, most folks in her country are largely unaware of the issue. There is a movement afoot to change that, especially in the schools, but still engagement on the issue is limited.

So, instead, they will focus their coin campaign on the economics. And given the world economy, I guess everything really does come down to dollars and cents...

...or coins and bills anyway...

Nine Centsphoto by Jonathan Pobre via Flickr

Snotty Tunnels of Love: Tidewater gobies deserve protected territory

2009-04-15T15:06:14Z

Sometimes the little critters we overlook are also some of the most amazing... This week NRDC renews a long-standing fight over a somewhat blah-looking little fish called the tidewater goby. Despite its drab appearance, the quirky swimmer exemplifies why the Endangered Species Act is essential for preserving our most fragile wildlife and ecosystems.

Admittedly, it would be easy to ignore tidewater gobies if it wasn't for their peculiar lifestyle. They are unremarkable looking: only 2 or 3 inches long, not colorful, not pretty... But their reversed gender roles are fascinating (at the very least to biologists, fish enthusiasts, and would be Young and the Restless fans) and make them almost completely unique amongst fishes (in fact, they are their own genus).

This isn't Sponge Bob Square Pants; the love lives of Tidewater gobies are as titillating as any TV drama.

Imagine this scene: the meek tidewater goby guy. Pale. Small. Not flashy. He's got a bit of a runny nose (in fact his skin leaks mucous)... Not to anthropomorphize too much, but I think he's kind of like the typical emo hipster... In the spring, when romance is in the air (or water?), he busies himself building a little love nest in the sand by excavating a chamber in the sand with his mouth and fins. While his runny skin might be uncomfortable in some social situations, the mucous comes in handy for cementing the walls of his bachelor pad.

While he plays it cool, female tidewater gobies get aggressive. They put on a bit of color and go out looking for their dream goby guy... Inevitably, the ladies happen upon those little love chambers in the sand and the fireworks begin as the lady fishes start dukeing it out for the opportunity to mate. The reverse sex roles of these gobies are even clearer once little fishies enter the equation. Momma fish drops hundreds of eggs before leaving the male homemaking goby to play the single dad while watching over the fertilized eggs for the better part of two weeks.

It may sound like "Desperate Houseguys" but this is every day life in the fragile brackish estuaries and lagoons that the gobies call home along California's coast. And only California's coast---this drama doesn't unfold anywhere else on Earth. Sadly, the brackish (salt and fresh water combined) estuaries, marshes and lagoons that serve as tidewater goby homes have been rapidly disappearing since the days of the gold rush, with probably less than a tenth left.

And that is the real drama for tidewater gobies.

As a result of NRDC's efforts, the fish stayed on the federal Endangered Species List in 2000 when the Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to jettison them; but we are going back into court for another fish fight on their behalf. Recently, the Service limited the gobies' protected habitat by removing any suitable areas where the fish cannot be found at the moment from their designated habitat (the actual locations that receive added legal protections). In the past, when drought or changing conditions killed off the tidewater goby populations in one area, gobies from a neighboring brackish habitat would re-colonize the area. This sort of shifting of populations is much harder today due to the disconnected, patchy nature of their habitat. Scientists are concerned that the mercurial changes to water level and quality that are typical of brackish ecosystems makes the goby's population fluxes very dangerous without the added habitat connectivity afforded by some of the currently unpopulated areas. The Service had noted that one way to protect the fish would be to do some of that re-colonizing artificially by releasing the fish into unoccupied areas of their historic range; though this would be unlikely now given the designations.

Protecting tidewater gobies is about protecting some of the state's most endangered coastal environments...not to mention one of its quirkiest mating rituals... Hopefully, this suit will address the needs of some of California's fragile ecosystems and inimitable species all at once!

Photo by Greg Goldsmith, courtesy of USF&W.

Wyoming Wolves: frustration on all sides…and one guy with serious guts

2009-03-30T23:44:06Z

It takes some serious guts for a public figure to challenge the anti-wolf lobby in Wyoming. And with the imminent release of the Department of Interior's new wolf rules that remove endangered species protections from the packs in Montana and Idaho, you can bet that tempers will really be flaring in Wyoming where the animals remain protected.

And that is how I know that Dick Sadler has a lot of guts.

Last Sunday, the Casper Star-Tribune posted an Op Ed from the longtime state legislator that called a lot of people to task for the wolf mess in the Cowboy State.

Don't get me wrong. I doubt Mr. Sadler and NRDC are on the same page on the issue---he probably would not support our actions to save Yellowstone wolves (though you should) . But I can certainly appreciate the frustration that is clearly evident in his opinion piece.

He takes issue with an anti-wildlife mindset that has ruled the state for some time. He calls out legislators who bowed to the antiwolf mob rather than listen to professional naturalists by name. He chafes at the transparent lunacy of ranchers' attempt to force taxpayer money to be spent in testing wolves for the cattle scourge, brucellosis. He lays into the seemingly hypocritical statements from those in the state that he says profit from cheap access to federal lands while telling the government "to go to hell" when they exert control.

He ends the piece with this:

I find it difficult to believe that the good Lord would put monsters portrayed as wolves on this earth. Not four-legged ones anyhow.

Yup, I don't know Dick Sadler. But I know he's got guts!

Dam Those Mussels: Great Lakes invasive species now threatening Lake Mead

2009-02-26T16:20:06Z

One of America's most iconic engineering marvels is being threatened by an advancing army. This is not a military threat---though it is foreign.

Quagga and zebra mussels, the twin scourges of the Great Lakes are marching west...well, actually hitchhiking.

The invasive species that have wreaked havoc and literally reshaped the ecosystem of Lake Michigan have a sneaky history. They originally arrived as stowaways in the ballast tanks of ocean-going tankers in the 80s and 90s. Introduced into a new freshwater ecosystem, they flourished and became the most numerous life forms in the Lake, having long ago pushed out the native species.

And now, they seem to have pulled off the neat trick of stowing away on smaller boats that have unwittingly transferred the malignant mussels into the waters of the West. Dan Egan's excellent article in last weekend's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel details the ugliness that followed when the stowaways departed from Midwestern pleasure boats in one of the West's most recognizable waterways:

If you drained Lake Mead above Hoover Dam, says National Park Service biologist Bryan Moore, it would reveal that brown canyon walls that were mussel-free just two years ago are now black with quaggas at densities of up to 55,000 per square meter.

Divers report them smothering everything on the lake bottom, from beer cans to a downed B-29 bomber. The rapacious, razor-sharp invaders are bloodying Lake Mead marina workers and are so thick in some places they've even sunk buoys.

As of last week, zebra and quagga mussels turned up in 33 bodies of water across Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado and Utah.

And they're spreading into fresh waters.

Sinking buoys? Remember, most zebra mussels are the size of your pinkie finger nail!

Uh oh.

Here in the Midwest, we know what will follow. A rapid advance of the itty-bitty bivalves clogging water intake pipes. In cities like Chicago and Milwaukee, the annual toll has been in the neighborhood of $100 million to try to get control of the problem and keep water flowing.

In the parched western states, beyond the possibility of trashing Hoover Dam's essential water intake pipes (and the power for a half million people), the infrastructure for moving water is probably even more susceptible to attack:

Nobody can put an exact price tag on what all this will cost the West, but in his testimony to Congress last summer, Ric De Leon of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California noted that the annual pipe-clogging cost for mussels in the Great Lakes is about $100 million.

He predicted costs in the West could exceed $250 million annually because of the extensive waterway networks lacing this dry side of the continent. He noted there are about 1,800 public water systems in the West drawing on surface water to serve 47.5 million people.

Yikes. This story makes it clear that we still need to get serious about the unglamorous world of ballast water law. On average, a new invasive species is introduced into the Great Lakes through the dumping of this water used to steady big boats.

There is good news on this front.

NRDC recently had a win in federal court protecting Michigan's tough ballast water rules. And we will soon be defending the State of New York's even tougher standards.

Just last week, the State of Wisconsin passed restrictions similar to the ones in New York.

And this week, Secretary Jackson announced that the federal EPA was now, thankfully, on the case.

But despite all this good news, the problem is not going away. Want a reason to care about this seemingly boring issue?

History shows that once an invasive species becomes established in the Great Lakes, it likely will never be eradicated. That doesn't mean the lakes - or the nation - have already seen everything the outside world can throw at them. The viral fish-killing disease known as VHS, for example, was not detected in the Great Lakes until 2005.

Fish ebola! Bleeding fish washing up on the shore. Who on Earth is fighting to keep that status quo? Well, among others, we have been fighting shipping interests in New York and Michigan:

Great Lakes oceangoing ships primarily haul steel and grain, and the whole enterprise is worth $55 million a year in terms of transportation savings, according to a 2005 Joyce Foundation-funded analysis of overseas cargo flows on the Great Lakes. In other words, it would cost the region that much more if overseas ships weren't allowed into the Great Lakes and their cargo were instead hauled by some other mode, such as truck, rail or Mississippi River barge.

Doesn't seem like a very good deal, huh? Saving $55 million in exchange for a problem that has already cost us billions...

But there are worse options still...

The problem is so scary, that some water managers are getting desperate and considering shockingly drastic measures.

Lorri Gray, regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation in Boulder City, Nev., meanwhile, worries about the ecological damage the mussels could do to dozens of native species already suffering from the dam construction projects during the past century.

She's thinking it might be a good idea to bring in some sterilized mussel-eating Asian carp.

Umm, that is a bad idea. A very, very, very bad idea that reminds me of that great kids song:

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly... I don't know why she swallowed the fly... Perhaps she'll die.

"Measuring Quagga Mussel Height" photo by Wendy S. Smith via Flickr

Beaver Tails and Tar Sands: climate security talks are not going to stay this sweet

2009-02-20T01:00:07Z

It was a sweet day for President Obama in Canada.

As he savored a "beaver tail" in Ottawa, security seemed the farthest issue from his mind. No, this is not an endangered species post...apparently there is a rockin' bakery in the Canadian capital that offers flat fried pastry with a funny name. The President delighted our neighbors to the north and likely irked his secret service detail by making a quick stop to satisfy his sweet tooth (and maybe curiosity...beaver tail, really?).

But security issues seemed to be at the heart of most everything Mr. Obama talked about with Prime Minister Harper on his first international trip. Border security. Afghanistan and International security. Economic and trade security.

Climate security.

And energy security.

How amazing and refreshing it was to hear the President of the United States elevating those last two to the top of the agenda?

However, there's an ugly side to that. There is one issue that is central to the bilateral discussion of climate and energy: the tar sands.

Quick review: tar sands oil is mined in Alberta where sludgy sand is heated and agitated to yield ultra-low quality petroleum. In the process of digging up two tons of Earth for every barrel of "oil" produced, incredible amounts of water are used spoiled and dumped into toxic lakes while huge tracts of the Boreal forest are ripped to the ground. The result? Goop that is piped into the US for refining into a fuel that emits three times the global warming emissions of standard petroleum. It's a lose-lose for everybody and clearly has no place in the low-carbon future that the Mr. Obama is already charting.

But there are a lot of security hawks out there that love the stuff. Afterall, Canada is our friend. They won't turn off the tap. They won't use the money against us as many of our Middleastern suppliers are doing. These folks contend that we should be taking more and more of Alberta's goo to alleviate those issues.

But relying on dirtier and dirtier oil (like tar sands) simply substitutes one problem with a far bigger one. Weaning ourselves from Middleastern oil does little good if we remain addicted to fuels that speed the impacts of global warming. Particularly when these dirtier fuels also impact our shared fresh water treasure---the Great Lakes. The problems that arise from global warming are way worse than the ones we are grappling with now---and plenty of folks in the defense and intelligence communities agree:

I've blogged already on General Zinni's comments and report.
And on former CIA Director Woolsey's take.
And this week, the former Dutch defense minister Joris Voorhoeve echoed those sentiments in an Op Ed that appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

But there is another option. We can move away from Middleastern AND tar sands oil to the most secure of all energy sources in the US.

Renewables. Nobody can turn off the tap on wind and solar. Nobody can use the savings from energy efficiency programs for ill.

This was not lost on Obama and Harper today. We've started a clean energy dialog. It will center on broader engagement in renewables---and investigating technologies to secure our climate from carbon. This week's stimulus plan makes me confident we will be able to do this in America... Canada? No technologies in the pipeline to fix the ugliness in Alberta.

Our clean energy dialog is going to need to become a quick discussion as Obama and Harper are clearly working towards creating a North American position (with President Calderon of Mexico) for the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen. This is a huge change for the U.S. Though the signals that Canada has given around protections for the tar sands makes me wonder if we will find a common stance...

The comments today were great to hear. Talk about change...it was amazing to see the President elevate climate change...or climate security...to such a significant issue on his first international trip.

Obama surely scored points with the Canadian public (he has an even higher approval rating up north than in the US) with some of his comments---and especially the Beaver Tail stop. But I fear that the discussions with our neighbor to the north is going to be a lot less sweet than the pastry from here on out.

Photo courtesy of Honus on Flickr.

The Tar Sands Litany: tough times for Calgary oilmen, tougher times for their PR folks…

2009-02-13T22:19:38Z

Things looked pretty rosy in Alberta last summer when oil was trading for $140/barrel. Investments flooded in from folks all over the world eager to stake their claim on the Canadian province's cash cow: tar sands.

Sure, there were some blemishes, but money talks...

But as oil prices deflated, it was a lot harder for people to ignore the environmental carnage that went along with the dirtiest oil in the world. Despite a $25 million dollar campaign of spin, propaganda, and cosmetic changes, people around the world couldn't miss or ignore a series of nasty incidents that confirmed assertions from a growing chorus on both sides of the border against the ugliness in Alberta.

So pity the oilmen---they've had a rough ride in the last six months. Prices dropped and gaffs put the troubling underbelly of the tar sands into sharper focus. In the glittering Calgary office towers that house oil giants from around the world, they were shocked (along with the Canadian government) by the global revulsion. What could have opened the world's eyes and turned so many against the tar sands?

Well, I can think of a few things off the top of my head:

Maybe it was the reaction of the United Nations' water program chief, aghast with disbelief after taking an aerial tour over the moonscaped wastelands left from tar sands strip mining. When she came back to the ground she described the world's biggest industrial project as "a slow motion oil spill," noting:

We were devastated by what we saw and smelled and experienced. The air is foul, the water is being drained and poisoned and giant tailing ponds line the Athabasca River.

Or maybe it was the recent commentary from Bishop Luc Bouchard who leads the Roman Catholic diocese that covers the region where tar sands are mined:

I am forced to conclude that the integrity of creation in the Athabasca oilsands is clearly being sacrificed for economic gain. The proposed future development of the oilsands constitutes a serious moral problem,

The present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oilsands cannot be morally justified. Active steps to alleviate this environmental damage must be undertaken.

Or maybe it was the moving account of health problems in First Nation communities downstream from the euphemistically named "oil patch" (or "The Patch" for short). While the Canadian government recently downplayed the extremely rare cancers found in unusually high numbers there, the Academy Award nominated movie "Downstream" paints a picture that is extremely hard to ignore.

Or maybe it was the maximum fines levied this week over the death of 500 ducks that landed in a Syncrude waste pond (partially owned by ConocoPhillips and Murphy's Oil) over the summer. The water in these open sewers from the mines is so oiled and polluted, the birds did not have a chance from the moment they landed.

Or maybe it was the Danger in the Nursery report that we put out with Boreal Songbird Initiative and Pembina Institute. Nobody knows how many migratory birds die in those poisoned lakes (or as the oil folks call them, tailings ponds---even though the cover more than 30 square kilometers these days; that is a mighty big pond!), but the report puts the toll in the low five figures annually. And includes a scary projection of up to 166 million birds dying due to broader tar sands impacts in the coming decades.

Or maybe it was the Canadian government silencing some of their young citizensdemonstrating their concern at the climate talks in Poznan, Poland last year. The Canucks rewarded the students' political engagement by demanding their photos of the tar sand devastation be ripped down.

Or maybeit was the University of Toronto's Munk Center report that labeled the refining and pipeline infrastructure currently growing like mushrooms through out the upper US Midwest as a "pollution delivery system" going directly into the Great Lakes.

Or maybe it was the recent $1.1 million fine for environmental damage levied by the State of Wisconsin against Enbridge, a Canadian company using eminent domain in America to force their tar sands pipelines, for damages to wetlands in the state.

Or maybe it was the announcement that the Peace-Athabasca Delta was being named a Biogem: one of the most threatened landscapes in the Americas.

Or maybe it was the recent report showing that those poisonous tailings ponds were leaking into the surrounding water table.

Or maybe it was the resolution from the US Conference of Mayors last summer, challenging the use of tar sands and other high carbon fuels on our city streets and in our city vehicle fleets.

Or maybe it was the growing concern over the scale of the tar sands---two tons of earth removed and six barrels of water fouled for every single barrel of oil that comes out of there. That production sounds unsustainable---and it is---but unfortunately the tar sands sit under an area the size of Florida...yikes.

Or maybe it's a growing recognition that we need to do something about global warming. An alternative fuel made from tar sands that emits three times the CO2 of traditional oil is really not an alternative at all...

Whatever the reason, pity the Albertans.

The world has changed, but they seem to have missed the clean energy economy memo.

They've made it clear that the provincial and federal officials will be bringing a full court press when President Obama makes the traditional first foreign visit for a new president to Canada next week. But the administration has already made a number of exciting low carbon decisions that would imply tar sands are not going to play a significant role in America's energy mix.

The neighbors to the north will push the tar sands as our most secure energy option. But there is a growing recognition that energy security and national security are not the same thing. In fact, you cannot have national security without securing the climate.

Oil prices are way down ($40ish per barrel), so things have slowed down around "The Patch" and a number of new infrastructure projects have been shelved. But, despite this week's news of an oil glut in the US, prices won't stay this low for long. As prices move back towards profitability, you can expect the pace of development in Alberta to gear back up.

And while the next boom for the Calgary oil guys probably won't bring the same profits as the glory days of 2008, there is another industry clearly poised for a big year...

The big PR firms in Canada should be excited for 2009.

After all, as tar sands production gears back up---you can expect plenty more galling stories to keep the spinmeisters very busy and very profitable.

Photo of Syncrude mines courtesy of Pembina Institute and www.oilsandswatch.org.

Hoosier Regulator? Feds and local governments wonder just what is going on in Indiana…

2009-01-23T22:50:04Z

There has been an eerie silence in Indiana as two branches of state government have steadily whittled public protections down to the nub in recent weeks. That is a frightening prospect in a state that contains one of the country's most polluted regions---but until recently, the Hoosier media has been oddly quiet about a steady assault on the state's environmental laws and regulators.

But this week, there are sudden signs of life with the US EPA and local officials joining a growing chorus of concern. Thankfully, the Gary Post-Tribune has chronicled the onslaught kicked off by Governor Daniels in December when he began taking a hatchet to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). After weeks of hacking, here are some of the programs that have been discarded:

Local air quality monitoring. Local air pollution monitoring contracts were dumped. An editorial in the Gary Post-Tribune, a paper plunked in the midst of some of the most polluted air in the country noted that, "The end of the contracts doesn't just mean a lack of local monitoring. It means less monitoring, period." And "The winner is industry. The loser is anyone who breathes."
Recycling programs. The state wasn't spending a lot here, but a $2 million fund for recycling program grants has been dumped "temporarily."
No fines for state agencies. Thanks to crack reporting from the Post-Tribune, we know that the state itself is a serial polluter. For example, the Indiana Department of Transportation was cited for dumping raw sewage into rivers and streams over 500 times in recent years. In the past, IDEM could fine the agencies to help force them to, literally, clean up their act. I guess the state got sick of paying itself fines because that power has been stripped and now IDEM can only send legal notices, an easily ignored slap on the wrist.
The IDEM enforcement division. Not sure how this one will shake up, but it could potentially be the most impactful of the bunch. The governor eliminated the division responsible for ensuring that the laws are followed. They are now lumped in with the folks who handle permitting and other issues. Local conservationists have expressed real concern about the mixing of these functions, though the state claims it will offer efficiency. Given some of the permits that have been issued, I think this could be very dangerous. And, according to press reports yesterday, this move has concerned the EPA enough for them to request a meeting.

In a state that can proudly claim to be a national leader in coal ash ponds, along with a huge array of industrial polluters and some massive new dirty projects coming online, you might expect this assault on the living conditions of every citizen to be countered by another branch of the government.

But apparently the Governor's marauding did not go far enough for Representative Phyllis Pond who entered a new bill into the state legislature to ensure that IDEM was completely neutered. According to the Post-Tribune:

A new bill would make it nearly impossible for Indiana to implement stricter environmental laws than required by the federal government -- unless it's an emergency and business representatives approve.

"That's exactly right," said state Rep. Phyllis Pond, R-New Haven, about the bill. "Unless there's some situation that really needs it, then we don't need to make a rule. I meant to make it very difficult to them to make rules more strict than EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.) If we really need it, EPA would have it."

The bill would establish an environmental rule review board, which would prevent existing air, water and solid waste pollution control boards from adopting state environmental regulations that are stricter than federal laws unless it's an emergency and the new board approves.

The board would consist of seven members. The three voting members would be the Indiana Department of Environmental Management commissioner or his designee and two businessmen appointed by the governor. Four legislators would be non-voting members.

From my vantage point, it seems highly unlikely that IDEM was ever going to push environmental protections to anything near new heights (look no further than the ongoing fight over BP's air pollution permits in Whiting).

But hey, better safe than sorry, right?

When the Representative was asked why her proposed board did not include any representation of Indiana citizens, municipal governments, or folks with a modicum of environmental concerns she noted that smaller boards are more likely to get things done.

Sadly, it seems like these folks have already gotten a lot done in Indiana of late...

But this week there have been hopeful signs. Earlier in the week, the USEPA sent a letter expressing their concerns and calling for a meeting. And officials from the cities of Gary, Hammond, and Evansville publicly expressed outrage over the elimination of air quality monitoring in their heavily-industrial region, which the state claims it can do more efficiently. Today's Post-Tribune includes the following from Dona Bergman, director of Evansville's Environmental Protection Agency:

Bergman called it "absolutely absurd" and "dis-ingenuous" to claim IDEM would be as effective and efficient as local agencies.

Hammond, Gary and Evansville officials have expressed concern that IDEM will be less responsive to complaints of residents and perform inspections less frequently.

"For the larger sources," such as U.S. Steel, BP and NIPSCO, "the ones that IDEM staff will have resources to inspect, 70 percent of those will get done only every two years. Thirty percent will be done every three years," Bergman said. "Local agencies did all those and a whole lot more every year."

Given our experience in the region, this last comment is perhaps the scariest part of this entire debate. If polluters like BP have been fighting lax permits given out by the state, what happens when the state stops monitoring to ensure those weak standards are met?

Hopefully these new voices will shine a light on the region---if it can penetrate the smog...

Photo taken amidst Lake Michigan's fabulous living sand dunes at Marquette Park in Gary, IN by Leah the Librarian, via Flickr

Food Guru and Global Warming: Meat and Mark Bittman on NPR

2009-01-22T22:02:21Z

I do a lot of the cooking in my house and Mark Bittman's book, How to Cook Everything, has become my kitchen bible. Bittman is not a chef. He's a journalist whose thoughtful stories have led him down a path to a small but growing food media empire.

His blog is great (thoughtful and cool recipes). His PBS shows are fun and educational (not typical cooking fare). And he continues to write.

Which brings me to this morning, when I was surprised to hear his voice over the NPR airwaves pimping a new book on "conscious eating." He describes the book as:

Here's the summary: Eat less meat, and fewer animal products in general (I'll get to specifics on page 93). Eat fewer refined carbohydrates, like white bread, cookies, white rice, and pretzels. Eat way less junk food: soda, chips, snack food, candy, and so on. And eat far more vegetables, legumes, fruits, and whole grains-as much as you can.

OK, seems reasonable.

But most of his interview, was focused on the "less meat" part of the equation. While there are quite a few vegetarians at NRDC, I am not one of them. I love meat. Still, Bittman's take is thought-provoking. Instead of the typical 10 meals/week in the American diet centered on meat, why not shift down to eight? When you look at the climate and pollution implications that come from modern factory farming, there are persuasive reasons to make this kind of change.

Still, I was a surprised that some of the stuff Bittman suggested on-air sounded...well...not particularly tasty. Soy sauce on oatmeal is pretty suspect, but that is not the point.

The point is, here's a guy who has devoted much of his life and career to food. In looking closely at his work, he sees a strong and, in his mind, dangerous connection to global warming. And so, he has made changes in his life to address these concerns. And while these are not necessarily huge changes---they certainly affect his world view and livelihood.

Listening to the interview, It turns out that the change has also paid off for him:

After just a few months of the new diet, Bittman says, he noticed improvements to his health: "I lost 35 pounds - which is about 15 percent of my body weight - my cholesterol went down 40 points; my blood sugar went from borderline bad to just fine; [and] my knees, which were starting to give out as a result of running at too high a weight, got better."

All of those things - and, he says, he's shrinking his carbon footprint.

"Feeling like you're changing the world," he says. "That's a nice thing, too."

I have no idea if the changes that Bittman is advocating can have the same impact on the planet as they've had in his personal life. My guess is yes...there are a number of groups out there advocating for much more drastic changes and there is evidence that broad changes in either the American diet and/or large-scale factory farm practices could make a big difference in the fight against climate change.

Let's be clear. I don't plan to become a vegetarian and I am not suggesting those lifestyle changes for anyone else. Your relationship with meat is your own business... (That is a very odd sentence to type, BTW.)

But I do think we are in a new era of personal responsibility and some of what I heard in the interview rings true to me. We are all going to have to do things to avert climate catastrophe. Some will involve vast economy-wide solutions, while others will be small changes and choices made at home.

That's why I had a falafel sandwich for lunch...

Who says change can't be tasty?

From Scapegoats to Science? Changes afoot in bison debate

2009-01-09T23:25:45Z

With news that wildlife officials will likely make changes in the way Yellowstone National Park's bison herds are managed, there has been an interesting shift to the tone of the debate recently.

Sure, it is still chock-full of emotional bombast coming from both sides...

But an excellent discussion of the best available science related to the buffalo-cattle conflict in today's Bozeman Daily Chronicle illustrates the more thoughtful tenor things have shifted to of late...

What? Science?

Yup. The paper does not publish opinion pieces online, so I have pasted it below:

Brucella Persistence in Bison Habitat - Bison Range Safe for Cattle June 15

The most likely possibility of transmitting brucellosis from bison to cattle would occur if a cow contacts an aborted bison fetus or afterbirth. Recent claims by cattlemen that Brucella bacter ia survive 2-3 months on the ground exaggerate the risk of Brucella transmission to livestock.

Laboratory studies indicate that Brucella survives best in cold, moist environments without sunlight, perhaps 2-3 months under ideal conditions. However, with warmth, aridity or sunlight, the bacteria will survive only hours to a few days.

More importantly, studies conducted in Montana and Wyoming, within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, show that most aborted fetuses and afterbirths disappear within a few days to a week due to scavenging animals, mostly coyotes.

Considering unscavenged materials, fetuses protected from scavengers, and the soil where scavenged carcasses had been, Brucella survived 2 months for fetuses set out during February - April, but only 25 days for those set out during May. (Most bison are born before mid-May.) In no case, did Brucella survive on the ground beyond June 15.

The best available science indicates that cattle may be safely brought onto range used by bison for wintering or even for calving, if the cattle are held back until June 15.

Jim Bailey

Belgrade

The author is a retired biologist and college professor well-known in the state. He points to some pretty simple fixes to the ongoing fights over how our public lands can and should be used in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

It is the sort of argument that might help us all get past the hard feelings and rising tempers to help get to a mutually acceptable solution that will take the needs of all parties involved into account...

Photo by by ailatan via Flickr

A New Rocky Mountain Low: Energy Security at the Expense of National Security?

2008-12-23T22:51:32Z

The Rocky Mountain News published a strongly pro-tar sands Op Ed from a Colorado petroleum geologist over the weekend, entitled "Oil sands spell energy security."

I don't claim to have aced any spelling bees -- but I do know my A-B-C's and enough about tar sands to be surprised that The Rocky would publish such a wrong-headed opinion piece. Not only does it border on climate change denial, but the central theme of the piece is out of line with the American defense and intelligence communities.

And those emissions are the crux of the problem for The Rocky's Op Ed. In the last year we have seen a growing number of reports (Department of the Navy and CIA) and Congressional testimonies that detail the growing concern over global warming in intelligence circles. They cite destabilization of weak regimes, increased competition for resources, and a huge population of environmental refugees that could have frightening geopolitical impacts in the coming decades.

Among the concerned are a growing who's who of prominent defense and intelligence figures with names that sound pretty familiar.

There is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni. The former commander of American forces in the Middle East and a co-author of a report warning that global warming poses a threat so huge that:

The only comparable experiences for many in the group was considering what the aftermath of a U.S.-Soviet nuclear exchange might have entailed during the height of the Cold War.

He told the LA Times, "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today ... or we'll pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."

That report came from the Center for Strategic & International Studies -- a group that is also associated with General Wesley Clark and a long list of Generals and Admirals who likely know a thing or two about protecting American interests in the world. If they are worried, we all should be...

The report underscores an essential point that the petroleum geologist who penned the Op Ed seems to have missed -- relying on dirtier and dirtier oil (like tar sand and oil shale) simply substitutes one problem with a far bigger one. Weaning ourselves from Middleastern oil does little good if we remain addicted to fuels that speed the impacts of global warming. Particularly when these dirtier fuels also impact essential fresh water supplies, a commodity that all agree will be far more valuable than oil in the coming years.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey gets it. He is absolutely focused on energy independence -- but he recognizes the inherent need to get serious about the move to kick the oil habit completely. He can be seen in a number of very prominent efforts to deal with the issue responsibly (including this NRDC anti-coal-to-liquid film, another frighteningly dirty fuel) advocating for plug-in hybrid cars and renewable energy sources.

The Op Ed questions the work of NRDC and repeats a litany of empty promises that have been made by the Alberta government and oil companies before proclaiming:

Environmental groups pretend as if the United States has nothing to gain from access to Canada's oil sands.

It is not pretend. And to proclaim otherwise is simply short-sighted (unless you are advocating for oil company profits)...

Luckily, there are plenty in America's defense and intelligence communities who will speak out against increased usage of Alberta's goo. They understand the dangers and the fact that national security and energy security are not always the same.

If you read the comments accompanying the Op Ed online, plenty of folks in Denver see the difference too. Maybe The Rocky will catch up and print some of those scalding responses in their Opinion pages too...