I will be at the Spring conference of the Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators this week (May 27-28) at Hockley Valley Resort, for anyone interested in looking me up at that event.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Readers should enjoy this article that offers some straight talk about the new US Administration and climate change.

COMMENTARY

May 2009

US Democrats backing away from cap and trade

By Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd, Columnist

Troy Media Corporation

US President Barack Obama's cap and trade proposal is in trouble with Democrats in Congress.

The most recent Democratic deserter is the Chairman of the powerful Agriculture Committee, Colin Peterson (D: Minn). Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who called cap-and-trade "the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time."

Even scientists like James Hansen and John Lovelock – the leading climate alarmists in the world – oppose the cap and trade legislation. In their view, the cap-and-trade approach is both “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.”

Several technical analysis of the potential impact of the cap and trade legislation in the US suggest that a full implementation and adherence to the emissions restrictions provisions described in the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would only result in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years -- a scientifically meaningless prospect. But even this insignificant result assumes a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80 per cent, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey bill. If implemented, cap and trade would produce a global temperature “savings,” during the next 50 years, of about 0.05ºC, assuming India and China also started to cut emissions.

Senator Jim Inhofe -- the Senate's resident climate change skeptic, believes that the cap and trade will raise $400 billion for the US treasury, but also increase energy costs for each family by approximately. $3,000 a year and lead to some 800,000 job losses. Pointing out that the vote on this part of the Obama's budget secured just 39 votes in the Senate -- 60 are needed for the legislation to become law -- Inhofe makes clear that he thinks that the cap and trade scheme is “dead in the water.”

The European Union's experience suggests that cap and trade, unless carefully enacted and enforced, leads to some people becoming quite wealthy, most people becoming poorer, with almost no impact of CO2 emissions. A pharmaceutical company in France, for example, has switched its core business from producing health products to selling carbon credits because it's more profitable. It continues to emit exactly what it emitted before the scheme began.

In place of cap and trade, some law makers in the US are beginning to tout the idea of a carbon tax -- along the lines of that implemented in British Columbia. This too is dead in the water. Almost all law makers are opposed to a carbon tax, arguing that it would have substantial negative impacts on the economy in general and “ordinary” families in particular. While the promise is that other taxes would be reduced, the reality of the US debt-ridden economy cannot afford it: the US government needs all of the tax revenue it can get.

Obama has committed to reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -- a 14 per cent cut from current levels -- then cut a further 80 per cent of the 1990 C02 emissions by 2050. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already said that the 2020 target is far too low and should be nearer 25 per cent. The target is important because it is a reflection of Obama's commitment: unfortunately, it is the lowest target set by any G7 nation. It also represents what Obama thinks is realistic -- something other countries do not seem to take into account when setting targets (almost none of which are ever met).

What happens if the cap and trade legislation does indeed fail? Well, Obama's secret weapon is the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), which has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and falls within their sphere of responsibility to regulate.

The EPA is a blunt instrument which will enact regulations within existing legislative frameworks, which do not require Congressional permission. With the death of cap and trade, look for the EPA to begin to develop regulations focusing on major polluters first, most likely targeting the coal industry and coal fired energy plants. In fact, it has already placed a hold on several coal fired powered plants which were about to be approved. Look to see buildings and emissions from the transportation sector to also come under their guns.

Because of its failure to pass cap and trade and its very modest emissions target, it is unlikely that the US will be the lead country in negotiations during the December Copenhagen Climate Change global summit.

Instead, it will be the EU that will lead. According to several diplomatic sources, however, preliminary work on the summit is not going well. The faltering US legislation and low targets, coupled with the continued challenge by China and India over their role in climate change and the implications of establishing global targets, are challenging diplomats to find a meaningful compromise. Another challenge is the demands of developing nations for an annual payment of $600 billion to compensate them for the impacts of climate change, largely driven by the developed economies. Copenhagen will be a battle, and largely symbolic.

The good news is that it is getting cooler, the global climate is well within its normal range, the arctic ice is getting thicker and there is growing recognition that climate alarmists, who base most of their arguments on climate change models rather than actual observations, are being revealed as exaggerators and polemicists. It will be an interesting period between now and the end of the year.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought readers would be interested in this unseen but disastrous environmental concern.

Ghost nets hurting marine environment

Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear is impacting fish stocks and poses a hazard to boats

Washington and Rome, 6 May 2009 - Large amounts of fishing gear lost at sea or abandoned by fishers are hurting the marine environment, impacting fish stocks through "ghost fishing" and posing a hazard to ships, according to a new report jointly produced by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

According to the study, the problem of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is getting worse due to the increased scale of global fishing operations and the introduction of highly durable fishing gear made of long-lasting synthetic materials.

The report estimates that abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear in the oceans makes up around 10 percent (640 000 metric tons) of all marine litter.* Merchant shipping is the primary source on the open sea, land-based sources are the predominate cause of marine debris in coastal areas.

Most fishing gear is not deliberately discarded but is lost in storms or strong currents or results from "gear conflicts," for example, fishing with nets in areas where bottom-traps that can entangle them are already deployed.

The main impacts of abandoned or lost fishing gear are:

continued catches of fish -- known as "ghost fishing" -- and other animals such as turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals, who are trapped and die;

alterations of the sea-floor environment; and

the creation of navigation hazards that can cause accidents at sea and damage boats.

Gill nets, fishing pots and traps are most likely to "ghost fish," while longlines, are more likely to ensnare other marine organisms and trawls most likely to damage sub-sea habitats.

Ghost fishing

In the past, poorly operated drift nets were the prime culprits, but a 1992 ban on their use in many areas has reduced their contribution to ghost fishing.

Today, bottom set gill nets are more often-cited as a problem. The bottom edge of these nets is anchored to the sea floor and floats are attached to their top, so that they form a vertical undersea wall of netting that can run anywhere from 0.4 to 6 miles in length. If a gillnet is abandoned or lost, it can continue to fish on its own for months - and sometimes years - indiscriminately killing fish and other animals.

Traps and pots are another major ghost fisher. In the Chesapeake Bay of the United States, an estimated 150 000 crab traps are lost each year out of an estimated 500 000 total deployed. On just the single Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, about 20 000 of all traps set each year are lost each hurricane season - a loss rate of 50 percent. Like gill nets, these traps can continue to fish on their own for long periods of time.

Solutions

"The amount of fishing gear remaining in the marine environment will continue to accumulate and the impacts on marine ecosystems will continue to get worse if the international community doesn't take effective steps to deal with the problem of marine debris as a whole. Strategies for addressing the problem must occur on multiple fronts, including prevention, mitigation, and curative measures," said Ichiro Nomura, FAO Assistant Director-General for Fisheries and Aquaculture. He also noted that FAO is working closely with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in its ongoing review of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) as regards fishing gear and shore side reception facilities.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said:" There are many ‘ghosts in the marine environment machine' from overfishing and acidification linked with greenhouse gases to the rise in de-oxygenated ‘dead zones' as a result of run off and land-based source of pollution. Abandoned and lost fishing is part of this suite of challenges that must be urgently addressed collectively if the productivity of our oceans and seas is to be maintained for this and future generations, not least for achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals".

The FAO/UNEP report makes a number of recommendations for tackling the problem of ghost nets:

Financial incentives. Economic incentives could encourage fishers to report lost gear or bring to port old and damaged gear, as well as any ghost nets they might recover accidentally while fishing.

Marking gear. Not all trash gear is deliberately dumped, so marking should not be used to "identify offenders" but rather better understand the reasons for gear loss and identify appropriate, fishery-specific preventative measures.

New technologies. New technologies offer new possibilities for reducing the probability of ghost fishing. Sea-bed imaging can be used to avoid undersea snags and obstacles. Fishing equipment can be expensive, and many fishers often go to great lengths to retrieve lost gear. Technology that makes doing so easier can help. Using GPS, vessels can mark locations where gear has been lost, facilitating retrieval, and transponders can be fitted to gear in order to do the same. Similarly, improvements in weather monitoring technology can be used to help skippers avoid deploying nets when very bad weather is imminent.

Just as new synthetic and other materials used in fishing gears have contributed to the ADLFG problem, they can also help solve it. Work is underway to speed up the commercial adoption of durable gear components that incorporate bio-degradable elements. For example, in some countries fish traps and pots are constructed with a biodegradable "escape hatch" that disintegrates when left under water too long, rendering the trap harmless. As this would not necessarily reduce the levels of debris, a reporting and retrieval system should also be adopted.

Improving collection, disposal and recycling schemes. It is necessary to facilitate proper disposal of all old, damaged and retrieved fishing gears, according to the report. Most ports do not have facilities on site that allow for this. Putting disposal bins on docks and providing boats with oversized, high-strength disposal bags for old fishing gear or parts thereof can help remedy this.

Better reporting of lost gear. A key recommendation of the report is that vessels should be required to log gear losses as a matter of course. However a "no-blame" approach should be followed with respect to liability for losses, their impacts, and any recovery efforts, it says. The goal should be to improve awareness of potential hazards and increase the opportunity for gear recovery.

The report discusses a number of other measures that could help, as well.

"Clearly solutions to this problem do exist, and our hope is that this report will prompt industry and governments to take action to significantly reduce the amount of lost or abandoned fishing gear in the marine environment," said Nomura.

The new report comes as nations are set to gather in for the World Oceans Conference in Manado, Indonesia (11-15 May 2009), where the issue of realizing healthy marine environments will figure high on the agenda.

Note to editors:

*The total input of marine litter into the oceans per year has been estimated at approximately 6.4 million metric tons annually, of which nearly 5.6 million metric tons (88 percent) comes from merchant shipping.

Some 8 million items of marine litter are thought to enter the oceans and seas every day, about 5 million (63 percent) of which are solid waste thrown overboard or lost from ships.

It has been estimated that currently over 13 000 pieces of plastic litter are floating on every square mile of ocean. In 2002, 4 miles of plastic was found for every mile of plankton near the surface of a gyre point in the central Pacific, where debris collects.

Mass concentrations of marine debris in high seas accumulation areas, such as the equatorial convergence zone, are of particular concern. In some such areas, rafts of assorted debris, including various plastics; ropes; fishing nets; and cargo-associated wastes such as dunnage, pallets, wires and plastic covers, drums and shipping containers, along with accumulated slicks of various oils, often extend for many miles.

For more information on the work of FAO: www.fao.org

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a fascinating article about the technology to gasify coal underground (not above ground) and avoid pollution, including GHG emissions.

Clean coal? Go underground, Alberta

BY THOMAS HOMER-DIXON AND JULIO FRIEDMANN

From the Globe and Mail, May 4, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT

Alberta appears to be in a box - an energy box - that constrains policy options in every direction. The province's wealth is critically tied to exploitation of its vast hydrocarbon resources. But faced with declining reserves of conventional oil and natural gas, it has been forced to turn increasingly to the tar sands, which pack a huge carbon punch. And in a warming world, carbon is seen as a menace. The strategy could severely crimp Alberta's ability to sell energy at home and abroad, even make it a pariah.

There is an alternative: coal.

What? Impossible, you say - measured in carbon emitted per unit of usable energy generated, coal is as dirty as the tar sands, or even dirtier.

Coal's many problems are well known. They start with the damage caused by mining. Mountaintops are sliced off in coal-rich zones in the United States. And burning it creates pollution from sulphur, ash and heavy metals. Although we can sequester coal's greenhouse-gas emissions underground with a technology called carbon capture and storage, it sharply boosts costs.

•Deflation's big game •Unbounded uncertainty •Everything is not peachy •We must green the market •Global capitalism teeters on the brink But can we get coal's energy without the carbon, ash and ruined landscapes? Yes - if we don't mine it.

Engineers have long known how to gasify coal above ground - turn it into syngas, a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The same is accomplished with underground coal gasification, but without the mining or the gasifier machinery.

Air or oxygen is injected into wells that penetrate a deep coal seam, where controlled partial combustion drives gasification. The gases are brought to the surface, leaving behind many of the objectionable components, including roughly half the coal's sulphur, ash, tar, mercury and arsenic. On the surface, this operation looks like nothing more than a network of wellheads and pipes. But the huge quantities of gas produced can either be burned to generate electricity on site or piped off to make hydrogen, heat or synthetic fuels.

UCG uses an inaccessible, dirty resource for largely clean energy. It allows us to reach coal seams that are too deep for conventional mining, effectively tripling or even quadrupling Canada's reserves. It's also relatively cheap - under ideal conditions, UCG syngas costs as little as $1 per million BTU. More realistically, the technology can produce raw syngas deliverable to most markets at less than $3 per million BTU. By contrast, Alberta and U.S. natural gas traded between $7 and $11 per million BTU in 2008 and early 2009.

Because the price is low, it becomes cost-effective to couple UCG with sequestration technology. The carbon content of UCG syngas is similar to that of burned coal. If Canada's deep seams were developed without sequestration, their emissions could exceed those of the tar sands. But UCG's carbon footprint could easily be less than that of a single natural gas plant if combined with partial or complete sequestration programs. All commercial projects proposed for the U.S. and Canada will capture and sequester most or all of the carbon dioxide they produce. The decarbonized syngas, in turn, could be used to produce power or low-carbon fuels.

Several countries have already deployed and even commercialized UCG. Most such projects were built in the Soviet Union during the 1950s and 1960s and in the U.S. after the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s. But the later flood of low-cost natural gas undermined these projects' economic viability. Nonetheless, one plant in Uzbekistan has burned UCG syngas continuously since 1959. Today, three commercial projects are ramping up in Australia and two in China.

Canada is a UCG leader. Ergo Exergy, based in Montreal, has operated a pilot project at industrial scale in Australia and is running the largest current pilot at the Majuba coalfield in South Africa. The company is also developing a project near Edmonton that will provide low-carbon electricity, steam and hydrogen to tar-sands upgraders, as well as carbon dioxide for sequestration and enhanced recovery from exhausted oil fields. So is Calgary's Swan Hills Synfuels, which is exploiting the deep Manville coal seam near Edmonton in partnership with the Alberta Energy Research Institute.

The big prizes in Alberta are the province's deep, thick and continuous seams of coal. Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California estimate that just five to eight square kilometres of such a resource could support a 200-MW gas plant for 50 to 70 years. Only eight such developments would meet Calgary's entire energy needs.

Compared to coal-bed methane technology, which extracts gas that is naturally resident in deep seams, UCG generates 300 to 400 times more energy per tonne of coal. Through UCG, Alberta has an energy resource comparable to the tar sands in scale and accessibility. And unlike the sands, which produce a great deal of carbon that is difficult or expensive to capture, UCG energy can be almost carbon neutral. Indeed, decarbonized UCG could even help reduce the footprint of tar-sands production and upgrading by supplying these facilities with carbon-neutral heat, hydrogen and steam.

Like any promising technology, UCG has problems. Although coal isn't mined, some coal mass is still extracted from underground. Poorly managed, this process can lead to harmful subsidence. Also, poor choice of site and project operation can contaminate groundwater, as has happened in one U.S. pilot project. Government has a key role in developing the technology and conducting the studies needed to regulate this emerging industry.

If UCG is to play an important role in Canada's energy future, it will need investment, oversight and commitment to the highest technical standards. But the benefits could be huge. UCG offers Alberta a real path to a carbon-free future and a new technology for export.

Thomas Homer-Dixon holds the CIGI Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo. S. Julio Friedmann is the head of the Carbon Management Program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 9:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)