Recent Posts

Climate Change

Climate Change Activism in Minneapolis, and Fracking

by gregladen on May 16, 2013

Fracking_ProtestI had an interesting experience last night that I thought MN Progressive Project readers would like to hear about, and the best way to do this is to cross post something I wrote on my science blog, so that’s below.

 

But before getting to that, there is an interesting press release from the Natural Resources Committee’s ranking member Rep. Ed Markey regarding Fracking:

 

 

A new draft rule to guide regulation of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of oil and gas resources on public and Indian lands weakens safety and environmental protections and restricts public knowledge of dangerous chemicals, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said today. The Department of Interior new version of the so-called “fracking rule” ignores many suggestions made by Rep. Markey and other Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, and appears to bend more towards the interests of the oil and gas sector, not the general public.

 

 

“This new fracking rule is extremely disappointing,” said Rep. Markey, the Ranking Member of the committee. “It gives oil and gas companies the freedom to frack without the proper safety protections and disclosures the American public deserve. Oil and gas companies like to say that every well is different, but this fracking rule would treat wells like cookie cutter activities, potentially leaving huge holes in ensuring that fracking activities on public lands are being done properly and safely. This rule essentially says to oil companies that they can frack first and ask questions later.”

 

In September, Rep. Markey along with committee members Reps. Rush Holt (N.J.), Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (C.M.), Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Grace Napolitano (Calif.) and Paul Tonko (N.Y.) wrote DOI expressing concerns with several aspects of the agency’s original draft rule. Those concerns weren’t positively addressed in this new rule, and in fact many were even further weakened in the latest draft rule. The Democrats’original concerns can be found HERE.

 

The new draft DOI rule doesn’t require companies to disclose what chemicals they are using and how much before they drill the well. Adding insult to potential injury to public lands, the DOI rule then says that companies can use drilling practices on one completed well, and then apply them to multiple wells in the same area.

 

The rule also puts faith into the industry’s favored “FracFocus” Internet-based disclosure of chemicals, when that website is both not run by the federal government and does not allow for easy public access to the information, limiting oversight of the industry. Finally, it keeps open the question of open pit storage of wastewater, instead of requiring closed system containment.

 

“Because there are so many issues with this draft rule, 30 days is not enough to review this new version. DOI should provide more time for the public to express their views on this rule. I hope that Secretary Jewell listens to our concerns,” said Rep. Markey.

 

And now, the the other thing, pertaining to the OFA and Keystone XL, originally posted here:

 

You’ve gotta love South Minneapolis.

 

…READ MORE

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 2 comments }

Why is our Minnesota winter not ending?

by gregladen on April 15, 2013

Why is it snowing so much in the Northern US States this Spring? Two words: Global Warming. Let me ‘splain.

 

Weather is all about air and moisture. The distribution of air is uneven, with some places having more air in big piles, other places having less air, into which the extra air from the big piles of air tends to spill. The big piles form because the surface beneath is relatively warm, causing the air to expand more than in adjoining areas. As air falls off these giant mounds of seeming nothingness, it forms low pressure systems that consist of swirling moving masses, made up of air of different temperature and humidities, and this is where many storms come from. Where the high mounds of air form depends on the seasons; since it is the relative temperature that matters, we might expect high pressure systems (mounds of air) to form over water during the winter and land over the summer with the low pressure systems being located over the opposite landform, but it is of course way more complex than that.

…READ MORE

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Non-binding Senate resolution supports Keystone XL

by Dan Burns on March 24, 2013

smokestacksThese sorts of votes are basically political stunts, in this case sucking up to Big Filthy Fossil Fuels. This one is nonetheless butt-ugly.

 

The vote was non-binding but all too telling. On Friday, the U.S. Senate voted 62 to 37 in favor of building the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, with 17 Democrats joining all of the Republicans. It was just an amendment to a budget plan that won’t even be going to the president’s desk, but it shows that the political class in D.C. views the pipeline very favorably — and believes voters view it very favorably too…

 

The Keystone decision still ultimately rests with President Obama, who appears to be dithering — and procrastinating like mad.

 

(Grist)

 

Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken both righteously voted “nay.”

 

I had been unaware that polls show strong public support for this wretched travesty. Of course corporate media hasn’t been highlighting how the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest, on purpose. Or that it will in fact produce only a miniscule quantity of permanent jobs in the U.S. Or anything else that doesn’t carry Big Dirty Energy’s stamp of approval.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 3 comments }

Keystone XL report written by TransCanada contractor

by Dan Burns on March 7, 2013

This explains a whole lot. And we are really owed some straight answers, though that unfortunately has never been President Obama’s strong suit, when he’s looking to cut deals.

 

The State Department’s “don’t worry” environmental impact statement for the proposed Keystone XL tarsands pipeline, released late Friday afternoon, was written not by government officials but by a private company in the pay of the pipeline’s owner. The
“sustainability consultancy” Environmental Resources Management (ERM) was paid an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada to write the statement, which is now an official government document. The statement estimates, and then dismisses, the pipeline’s massive carbon footprint and other environmental impacts, because, it asserts, the mining and burning of the tar sands is unstoppable…

 

Because the impact statement was written by a TransCanada contractor, not by State Department officials, it should come as no surprise that it presents a worldview of a global economy inevitably dependent on dirty fossil fuels that is entirely at odds with the expressed views of Secretary of State John Kerry.

 

(Grist)

 

Here’s another recent, relevant item.

 

James Hansen’s eye-opening article, “Game Over for the Climate,” brought widespread attention to the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada as a source of carbon which, if tapped, would lead to irreversible global warming. There is another climate bomb in the United States, shale gas hydraulic fracking, which emits methane, more dangerous than CO2. While many rhetorically call natural gas a bridge to the clean energy future, new information is showing the opposite; natural gas will hasten climate change, poisons the air, land and water, and carries unacceptable risks to our health…

 

Industry is going to great lengths to hide the impact of these extreme methods and to promote them as safe and necessary energy sources, even falsely calling them “clean.” The American Petroleum Institute created multimedia public relations campaigns with innocuous names such as Energy Tomorrow and Energy Citizens to provide a green-washed image of the industry as one that is concerned about the environment and health and that is creating jobs and energy security.

 

(Truthout)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 2 comments }

Earth Train heads to DC for climate change rally

by The Big E on February 16, 2013

70 Minnesotans hopped on a train headed for Washington, DC this morning. They’ll be attending the Forward On Climate rally tomorrow on the Washington Mall. The rally is expected to draw tens of thousands of people.


This morning 70 Minnesotans discovered that changing one word can change the world. As they gathered at the St Paul Amtrak station, a flash mob blossomed singing, “ride on the earth train,” a heartfelt adaptation of Cat Steven’s “Peace Train.”
The dream of an earth train was born on November 30th as Susan and Jim Lenfestey left Bill McKibben’s Do the Math Tour feeling inspired and ready for action. Bill had suggested attendees join him for a rally in Washington D.C in February to encourage President Obama to take meaningful action towards a clean, sustainable energy future. Susan joked, “well we know we can’t fly. Let’s take the train!”
Her offhanded joke was really a deeper reflection of a commitment to a clean energy future. Planes are one of the biggest contributors of carbon, and if we are to significantly lower the carbon in our atmosphere, limiting our air travel is an excellent place to start. The train ride to D.C will be long, but it will be a chance to enjoy the landscape, engage with other passengers, and minimize carbon emissions on a long journey. (Read more about Amtrak’s commitment to environmental sustainability here).
(MN350.org)

Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Mpls) was one of the 70 to hop on the train.

“I’m a life-long environmentalist,” Hornstein said. Hornstein is chair of the House Transportation Committee and a member of the Energy Policy Committee. “I strongly believe that climate change is one of the defining issues of our generation. This event is nothing less than historic.”

A few others hopped on the train, too. Author Louise Erdrich, humorist, storyteller Kevin Kling as well as musician Prudence Johnson.


facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Dear AP: Climate change is not a social issue

by Eric Ferguson on February 13, 2013

EarthMPR reprinted an AP article on last night’s State of the Union speech. The writer, Nedra Pickler, included this weird sentence (bolding mine), “And he continued to push in support of left-leaning social issues including gun control, immigration reform, climate change and advancing equal rights for gays.”

I won’t speculate on whether the writer innocently meant to lump together what she saw as non-economic issues, or really thinks climate change is just some lefty special interest thing. I would like to point out to her that social issues are about people, and climate change is about nature, which I would think any cub reporter could tell apart. Social issues are normally about expanding or restricting rights. Climate change is about whether the drought becomes the new normal inland while the coasts get flooded.

Equality and public safety are obviously important too, but a significant danger to the entire planet just got lumped in with other issues, suggesting the writer dismissed their individual importance. She could have just said the president included non-economic issues if a characterization was needed.

One thing the writer missed entirely was voting rights. The president introduced a 102-year-old woman who waited several hours in line to vote, like hundreds of thousands of her fellow Floridians. That makes voting rights more than just a throw-away line, as does his mention of a specific bill. That would seem to indicate the president thinks this is an issue up there with the others important enough to warrant their own section of the speech.

One tangent, how could the Republicans sit and refuse to applaud this woman’s determination to vote? Oh right, elderly black ladies voting in swing states is bad. Since the long waits aren’t enough, that proves we need a strict photo ID law.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Dollars for Denial: Koch Brothers Funding of Anti Climate Change Movement

by gregladen on January 27, 2013

This will not be a big surprise, but the order of magnitude involved may be a bit shocking.  Over the last two days a number of findings have been released related to the funding of anti-climate change science activities, by Big Oil but mainly the Koch Brothers.  I wrote up an overview, which, in turn points to the major news stories, so when you go to work Monday Morning you’ll know all about it!  

It has become increasingly difficult to understand the motivation behind climate science denialism. The Earth’s climate is changing, mainly in the form of increased temperatures of the oceans and the atmosphere, because of the release of copious amounts of previously trapped Carbon through the burning of fossil fuels. There is no longer a question that this is happening, and every year, the various details that one might like to see worked out, regarding the mechanisms or effects of climate change, are increasingly known. To state, with a straight face, that the jury is still out, or that we can’t separate natural variation from human caused changes, or that the earth has stopped warming for the last decade, or any of the other things we constantly hear from climate change denialists is exactly the same thing as standing there with a big sign that reads “I am a moron.” Politicians, who by and large remain ignorant of all sorts of science, have become aware of this over recent years and many now couch their phraseology in cautious terms, if they happen to be running there campaigns, as many are, on the Oil Teat. Even more amazing, principled Libertarians have stopped denying the reality of climate change, taking a different tact to avoid any responsibility or action: Yes, the climate change we’ve been busy denying the reality of for the last 30 years is real, they agree, but it is too late to do anything about it now so let’s just move inland as the sea level rises and buy lighter jackets.

Read the rest here.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 1 comment }

There are science and experts, but then there is politics

by Eric Ferguson on January 17, 2013

EarthThis article in the Star Tribune on the testimony of some scientists at a joint hearing of a couple state House committees has caused some controversy because pf the first line, “Science made a comeback at the State Capitol on Tuesday.” Republicans think it implies they kept science out, and they do have a point. It could be taken as editorializing, though as a matter of accuracy, it’s pretty accurate considering Republicans have turned into a bunch of science deniers who think one paid shill with dubious credentials outweighs all the scientists in a given field, provided the shill is ideologically correct.

Still, Republican complaints with the writers is merely the reason you might have noticed the article, and not the article’s most interesting part (that statement is definitely opinion, but take it as accurate for the moment). The most interesting part was a quote from Rep. Joe McDonald, R-Delano, “There is science and experts, and then there is political debate.” He’s right on that in a way. The debate over global warming is just political, not scientific, assuming that’s what he meant. Though I have feeling that’s not what he meant. I have a feeling his meaning was more like, “Sure, you have your experts and scientists and facts, but I have my guts and conservative beliefs, and I know which I trust more!”. Not that I’m reading his mind, but I am reading the rest of the quote, “And one side questions the authenticity of global warming. How do you know, if we are looking at only 200 years?” Yes Rep. McDonald, one side questions the authenticity of global warming, that’s undeniable, but you know what else is undeniable? Global warming. How do we know, if we’re looking at only 200 years? We’re not looking at only 200 years Rep. McDonald, which you would know if you had any interest in the actual facts.
OK, maybe not all legislators less than fully able to explain the problem are Republicans. I was a bit disturbed by this,

But even those who accept the science said it doesn’t solve the daunting political problem of climate change. “I don’t have an answer for my colleagues who see this as a natural event,” said Rep. John Benson, DFL-Minnetonka.

I hope all he means is that’s what some Republicans use as their form of denial and he doesn’t know what else to say to them. I hope he doesn’t mean he can’t explain that we’re pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and thereby trapping increasing amounts of heat, and like any time you add energy into a system, it has to go somewhere and change something, even if you don’t know enough to predict just what those changes will be.

As long as we’re facing facts, let’s face facts and admit the DFL legislators will have to address environmental issues with no help from their Republican colleagues. For global warming to be real, conservative leaders and ideology would have to be wrong, and given a choice between admitting where the evidence is and making changes to a worldview, conservatives are pretty consistently choosing the latter. Some Republicans certainly have understood and accepted the science, but they have found that saying, “global warming is real” is the same as saying, “I hereby give up all hope of winning my party’s nomination for reelection.”

A bit of voluntary disclosure: I’m the chair of the DFL in senate district 63, which includes the district of the chair of one of the House committees holding the hearing, Rep. Jean Wagenius, 63B. However, in writing this post, I’m expressing only my own opinion, and not speaking for the SD63 DFL or for Rep. Wagenius. Even if I do share her Mother Earth feminism.  

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Our candidates shouldn’t shy from climate talk

by Dan Burns on October 9, 2012

“Swing voters” are on our side.


The reason, he explains, is that “independents respond more like Democrats than like Republicans” on the issue-giving climate advocates a potentially larger base of support. For example: 72 percent of Democrats in the study, as well as 66 percent of independents, agreed that global warming would harm “future generations” either a moderate amount or a great deal.

But perhaps most striking is Taylor’s recently released report, which draws on a survey designed by Harstad Strategic Research pollster Andrew Maxfield, who previously did polling for President Obama’s 2008 campaign. In a survey of 1,204 likely voters in May 2012, Maxfield found that a “clean energy” candidate fared better than an “all-of-the-above” candidate who supported a variety of energy choices-coal, drilling, and also clean energy.

All of this despite America’s pretty much unique media bias on this issue.

And why not?  Oil sucks.  Coal sucks.  As far as the public is concerned (and they’re correct), solar rules.  Wind alone could handle at least half, and perhaps far more, of the world’s energy demand.  It’s long past time to move on, and big majorities know it.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Let’s Ban Frack Sand Mining In Minnesota

by Dan Burns on September 20, 2012

The following is from an email I got, from CREDO Action.

Minnesota has few regulations governing sand mines, putting residents at risk. But each mine still requires a permit from the state, and Governor Dayton can put the brakes on this deadly mining rush by placing a moratorium on permits for new mines.

Frack sand mining is objectionable, to say the least, on several grounds:

1. The direct environmental and health effects of the mining itself.

2. The sand is used in fracking.

3. Fracking is used to obtain fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, the use of which promotes climate change.

More below the fold.  
From the same email (I tampered a bit with how the links are presented):

As the number of fracked gas wells has ballooned in the last 10 years, vast tracts of land in Minnesota have been snatched up by mining companies and transformed into desolate surface mines. Silica sand mines, processing plants, and transportation facilities generate huge clouds of silica dust, which causes cancer and the deadly lung disease silicosis.

Bluestem Prairie has been covering this issue in southern Minnesota.  Here’s a recent article; you can use the tags to get to the rest.

The literature is growing, regarding what an awful practice fracking is.  If you’re not already familiar with the matter, here’s one good place to start, for now.

But when you look at the whole natural gas package, from production through use and waste disposal, it’s clear that natural gas exacts a steep environmental toll – particularly when it’s fracked. In addition to the amount of water involved, and the huge quantities of chemical-containing wastewater, there is air pollution from heavy machinery at the drill sites and hydrocarbons released by the wells, which scientists are just beginning to investigate.

Regarding point 3, above:

And now comes along a new study by Tom Wigley of the National Center on Atmospheric Research, raising further questions about natural gas’s climate impact. Wigley’s study, which will be published in Climactic Change Letters next month, finds that a worldwide partial shift from coal to natural gas could actually speed up global warming between now and 2050 (more on why in a sec). After that, global warming would slow slightly, although it would depend on how well the industry could limit methane leaks.

Even in the most optimistic case, natural gas isn’t a panacea – Wigley’s computer simulations suggest that a partial shift to natural gas would, at best, lower the increase in global temperatures about 0.1 degree Celsius in 2100.

I recognize that an immediate ban on this practice in Minnesota is unlikely to be forthcoming.  Governor Dayton has many interests to deal with, and, “JOBS!! (at any cost),” you know.  (Far more jobs are to be had by aggressively promoting green, renewable energy sources.  But that doesn’t play as well with much of the public, especially during election season, as it should.)  That being said, I see no objection to getting this agenda out there.  Nobody has a “right” to jobs that clearly produce a net negative for society as a whole.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries