Category Archives: Climate Change

Latest Benicia DEIR comments: Center For Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council

On December 16, the City of Benicia released yet another document highly critical of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Draft EIR.  The massive report was submitted for the record on December 5 by the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council.  The document focuses on biological resources and climate change.  Many thanks to our friends in these excellent organizations!

The summary page follows:

CBD-CBE-NRDC_lttrhdDecember 5, 2014

Amy Million, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
250 East L Street
Benicia, CA 94510
amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us

Re: The City of Benicia’s Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project

Dear Ms. Million,

On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council, we submit the following comments on the City of Benicia’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project (Project). The Project, if approved, would allow the Valero refinery to receive up to 70,000 barrels per day of crude oil by train, which equates to a potential for 1.07 billion gallons of crude oil imported by train each year.

These comments supplement prior comment letters by detailing the significant deficiencies in the DEIR’s assessment of impacts to Biological Resources in Section 4.2. Specifically the DEIR (1) fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts to biological resources at the Project area; (2) fails to adequately analyze and mitigate impacts along the rail lines serving the Project; (3) fails to properly analyze the cumulative impacts of increased crude oil shipments on biological resources; and (4) fails to adequately evaluate impacts related to climate change.

Because this Project would result in significant impacts to biological resources, the City cannot certify the DEIR before adopting all feasible mitigation measures. At present, the DEIR fails to identify and analyze mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s impacts.

However, there are numerous mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce the impacts of the Project. These measures must be analyzed in the DEIR, so that the full range of options are publicly disclosed and considered by decision‐makers.

[Editor: The document continues … Note that the “Public Comment” link below goes to a huge 584-page document on the City’s website, a 24mb download.  WordPress will not allow an upload of this magnitude here on The Benicia Independent.  The bulk of the document (570 pages) is supplemental studies, all important, but for the heart of the document, see the 14-page Comment Letter minus the supplements.  – RS)

Public Comments October 17-December 15, 2014  (A single comment letter, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources Defense Council.)

NPR Science Friday: Climate Deal or Not, Fight Against Global Warming Has Begun

Repost from NPR Science Friday
[Editor: In this 21-minute audio report, Science Friday host Ira Flatow interviews David Biello, Editor, Environment & Energy, Scientific American; Kate Ricke, Fellow, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University; and Robert Stavins, Professor, Environmental Economics & Director, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Harvard Kennedy School.  After you listen, CHECK OUT THE EXCELLENT links at bottom of this story.  – RS]

Climate Deal or Not, Fight Against Global Warming Has Begun

Ira Flatow, December 5, 2014

The United Nations climate meetings began this week in Peru, a dress rehearsal of sorts for treaty talks in Paris next year. But whether world leaders forge a deal or not, Scientific American‘s David Biello and environmental economist Robert Stavins say the fight against climate change has already begun—at the state and local level, and in the private sector. Last year, for example, new solar plants outpaced coal installations in the U.S., and carbon-trading schemes across state and national borders have already begun.

Produced by Christopher Intagliata, Senior Producer
Guests
  • David Biello
    Editor, Environment & Energy
    Scientific American
    New York, New York
  • Kate Ricke
    Fellow, Carnegie Institution for Science
    Stanford University
    Stanford, California
  • Robert Stavins
    Professor, Environmental Economics
    Director, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
    Harvard Kennedy School
    Cambridge, Massachusetts

Des Moines, Iowa: Action must be taken to reduce the hazards from railroad shipments of Bakken oil

Repost from The Des Moines Register

Action must be taken to reduce the hazards from railroad shipments of Bakken oil

By Carolyn Heising, November 15, 2014
Train3.jpg
(Photo: CANADIAN PRESS )

Now is the time to ask: Is the growing practice of using trains to carry highly-flammable crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale field through communities in Iowa safe and even necessary?

Is it free of the hazards that led to the railroad accident in Quebec last year that killed 47 people and destroyed half of the town of Lac-Megantic? Or is it adding to the stress on the rail system?

Iowa is one of a number of states that have become a corridor for the shipment of Bakken crude over the past three years. Canadian Pacific Railway ships heavy loads of oil south through five eastern Iowa counties. BNSF Railway ships crude through four western Iowa counties. The oil is transported to refineries on the Gulf Coast or to pipeline connections.

No question about it, U.S. oil production is booming. The shale revolution is the dominant economic and geopolitical event of the past decade. Its effects have been transformative.

The United States is on the verge of becoming the world’s leading oil producer. OPEC is no longer the threat it once was. The growth in the U.S. energy industry has more than doubled in the past 10 years and is now worth about $1.2 trillion in gross product each year, contributing about 30 percent of the job growth for the nation, according to a study by the Perryman Group.

And the oil boom is likely to continue unless a catastrophic event brings it to a halt.

One reason environmental groups seem relatively calm about railroad shipment of crude oil is that they know what a minor event it is amid the chaos of fossil-fuel production and the dangerous and destabilizing chaos of climate change. A big part of the problem is the paradoxically positive economic effect of shale-oil production, which is loading the atmosphere with an enormous amount of global-warming carbon dioxide and methane.

What’s the answer?

Long-term we need to reduce the amount of oil we use in transportation by shifting to electric cars with batteries powered by renewable energy sources and nuclear power. Right now, action must be taken to reduce the hazards from railroad shipments of Bakken oil, which is much more flammable than conventional crude oil.

Freight railroads have gone from being a relic of the past to being a key mode of transport for oil supplies. Currently about two-thirds of North Dakota’s Bakken oil production is transported by rail. And more than 10 percent of the nation’s total oil production travels by rail.

In the last quarter of 2013, more than 71 million barrels of crude oil were shipped by rail, more than 10 times the volume of oil shipped in 2008. Over the past six months, there have been at least 10 large crude oil spills in the United States and Canada because of railroad accidents.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has responded by proposing speed limits along with a system for classifying the oil and new safety design standards for rail tanker cars.

The railroads say there have been relatively few rail accidents and not much loss of oil, considering the huge quantities of oil being shipped around the country. However, oil companies — which own the oil rail cars — are shipping much of the crude in outdated tank cars called DOT-111s that are vulnerable to puncture in a derailment.

The trains have captured the attention of local emergency responders by the amount of oil they carry — 100-plus tanker cars carrying up to 30,000 gallons of highly flammable fuel are not uncommon. In New Jersey, a key rail route, the trains pass within a few feet of homes and schools in highly populated areas.

Those who believe that slower train speeds alone are the answer should think again. A train hauling Bakken crude derailed in downtown Lynchburg, Va., a bustling city of 75,000 people. Three tanker cars tumbled into the James River. One of the tanker cars ruptured, spilling 30,000 gallons of crude.

Fortunately, no one was killed or injured. But local fire officials, who are accustomed to dealing with oil accidents on a much smaller scale, said the train was traveling within the speed limit. After the Quebec disaster, major rail companies agreed to reduce the maximum speed of oil trains to 40 miles per hour when they are within 10 miles of a major city. Lynchburg set its own speed limit of 25 mph. The train was going slower than 25 mph when it derailed.

Because a lot is riding on rail safety, oil companies should consider what other industries that use trains to haul hazardous cargoes have done to prevent accidents. For example, the nuclear industry uses specially-built freight cars to transport used nuclear-fuel assemblies from one nuclear plant to another. Since the 1960s, there have been thousands of trips involving the rail transport of nuclear waste in the United States, without a single serious accident.

That’s a stellar safety record which bodes well for the rail shipment of nuclear waste to a deep-geologic repository — and nuclear power’s increased use for electricity production.

Admittedly, the number of oil trains and the amount of hazardous cargo they carry is far greater than it is for nuclear companies and most other industries. But if oil companies continue to use puncture-prone tanker cars to haul highly-flammable Bakken crude in 100-car trains traveling at dangerous speeds, the ultimate consequences could be dire, and we will wind up asking ourselves why something more wasn’t done to prevent it.

THE AUTHOR:
CAROLYN D. HEISING, Ph.D., is a professor of industrial, mechanical and nuclear engineering at Iowa State University. Contact: cheising@iastate.edu.

 

2014 Elections: environment wins and losses

Repost from Grist

3 climate hawks who won their races

By Lisa Hymas, 5 Nov 2014

There were a few wins for the climate movement on Tuesday night. And, alas, a greater number of losses. Here are results from a handful of the most interesting races with the most hawkiest candidates.

Winners:

Gary Peters
Gary Peters | The Henry Ford

Gary Peters, won Michigan Senate race

Gary Peters, a Democrat who’s served in the U.S. House for the past six years, won the open Michigan Senate seat in part by emphasizing the issue of climate change. “Michigan is on the front lines of climate change with our Great Lakes and economic system,” Peters told The Washington Post this spring. “This is something elected officials should be talking about — we have to be concerned about it.” Peters also fought the Koch brothers when one of their companies dumped huge piles of filthy petcoke, or tar-sands residue, along the Detroit River; he’s credited with helping to get the piles removed.

—–

Brian Schatz
Brian Schatz | Schatz for Hawaii

Brian Schatz, won Hawaii Senate race

Democrat Brian Schatz was appointed to the Senate in 2012 to take the place of deceased Sen. Daniel Inouye, and in Tuesday’s special election the voters gave him the seat for another two years. While many Senate Dems say the right things and take the right votes on climate change, Schatz has emerged as a real leader on the issue. In March, he co-organized an all-night climate talkathon on the Senate floor, to raise the issue’s profile and get his fellow senators more engaged. And he wants to get average Americans more riled up about climate change too: “We need more passionate enthusiasm and engagement from the public,” he told Grist earlier this year.

—–

Jeanne Shaheen
Jeanne Shaheen | Mark Nozell

Jeanne Shaheen, won New Hampshire Senate race

Democrat Jeanne Shaheen beat back carpetbagger and climate flip-flopper Scott Brown to win a second Senate term. She’s repeatedly spoken out about the need for climate action, and has cosponsored a bill that would create a national renewable energy standard. “Climate change is very real, and here in New Hampshire we are already seeing consequences,” she said earlier this year. She’s also gotten props from greens for tirelessly pushing energy efficiency, specifically an efficiency bill she’s cosponsored with Republican Rob Portman.

Losers

Rick Weiland
Rick Weiland | Rickweiland.com

Rick Weiland, lost South Dakota Senate race

Democrat Rick Weiland never had much of a chance in conservative South Dakota, where he was up against former Gov. Mike Rounds (R). But he put up a good fight. And unlike other Democrats running in red states, Weiland offered an aggressively green agenda. As Ben Adler reported last week, Weiland called for a carbon price, opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, and argued that we need campaign finance reform to tamp down the influence of Big Oil and other polluters on our elections.

—–

Mark Udall
Mark Udall | Mark Udall

Mark Udall, lost Colorado Senate race

After serving one term in the Senate, Democrat Mark Udall, a climate hawk, got beat by Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, a climate wobbler. As Ben Adler noted earlier this year, Udall “unequivocally supports efforts to address climate change, and he’s pushing to renew tax credits for wind energy.” At the same time, “he also backs his state’s fossil fuel industries, including the booming fracking sector.” That carefully calibrated moderation — and more than $12 million of spending by green groups — didn’t help him keep his seat.

—–

Shenna Bellows
Shenna Bellows

Shenna Bellows, lost Maine Senate race

Democrat Shenna Bellows waged an unsuccessful long-shot campaign against popular incumbent Susan Collins, arguably the most moderate Republican in the Senate. Even the mainstream environmental groups backed Collins, who has called for climate action and in 2010 sponsored a cap-and-dividend bill. But Bellows was clearly the greener candidate, which is why she got the backing of the Climate Hawks Vote PAC. As the PAC explained in its endorsement, “She will seek limits on carbon emissions. She opposes the Keystone XL pipeline. And — unlike Collins — she’s taken a firm stand [against] the proposed Portland Montreal Pipeline Reversal, a plan to re-engineer an existing pipeline to carry carbon-intensive tar sands from Canada to Portland, Maine and then to the global marketplace.”

—–

Paul Clements
Paul Clements | Paul Clements for Congress

Paul Clements, lost House race in Michigan’s 6th district

“Climate change is the greatest threat to Michigan and to the world in the 21st century,” said Paul Clements, the Democrat who challenged Rep. Fred Upton. Clements campaigned on creating clean energy jobs. “Clements is a bona fide climate hawk,” David Roberts wrote last week — and, indeed, he won an endorsement from the Climate Hawks Vote PAC. Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, used to say sane things about climate change, then turned tail after the Tea Party rose up. Starting late last month, it looked like Clements might pose a real threat, but ultimately the voters sent Upton back to the House, where he’ll keep on serving the interests of Big Fossil Fuels.

—–

Charlie Crist
Charlie Crist | Kelly Walker

Charlie Crist, lost Florida governor’s race

Back when Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, from 2007-2010, he was quite good on climate change and energy issues. That, among other things, meant he was too liberal for the Republican Party; he left to become an Independent, then a Democrat. He became even more outspoken on climate change as he mounted a challenge this year against incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who’s been terrible on enviromental issues. But even though climate change poses a particularly huge threat to Florida, that didn’t sway enough voters to Crist’s side; Scott squeaked through with a reelection win.