Sierra Club Compass Blog

I clearly remember the Sunday headline in early May 1982. "Exxon Abandons Oil Shale Project" was the exact wording, followed by a story that told how at least 2,200 workers had just received their pink slips from a project that was going to be America's version of Saudi Arabian oil. Whether the technology to recover oil from oil shale just isn't ready, or will never be, for 100 years oil shale, like snake oil, has never lived up to its promises.

I'm reminded of that day today, nearly thirty years later, as we witness the latest chapter unfold in the ongoing, century-long saga of oil shale. Only this time the federal government is not rushing in blindly, but asking oil companies to prove their ability to extract usable oil from a rock formation found in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming.

Today the Bureau of Land Management released a long-awaited Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the leasing of millions of acres for the purpose of developing oil shale. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar ordered the study back in 2009. After a thorough scientific review, the agency recommends a dramatic scaling back of federal lands available for leasing, and only for research and development -- not full-scale commercial leasing -- until the industry can demonstrate that oil shale is a viable energy source that won't have unintended consequences on a region that is defined by a lack of water. 

According to a statement released by the BLM:

Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale development, we're proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial-scale activity," BLM director Bob Abbey said in a prepared statement. "If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first.

BLM's new approach reduces the Bush-era plan to lease nearly 2 million acres down to 461,000 acres, split unevenly among the three states. Utah will be allowed to lease 252,000 acres, Wyoming gets 174,000, and Colorado gets 35,000.

Some would say that it's politics. I'd say that it's common sense. Why allow oil companies to lease and tie up large chunks of federal lands for speculation (some would say their real goal is to pad their portfolio in order to attract investors) when, after a century of trying, no one has demonstrated a viable process to extract usable oil from a rock?

Common sense tells us that caution is the best approach when it comes to the nexus between historical snake oil, like oil shale, and the very real potential impacts to air and water, specifically the Colorado River watershed, which provides water for roughly 30 million people, some spectacular lands and wildlife, and outdoor opportunities enjoyed by millions every year.

It should go without saying that the BLM is demonstrating sound public policy in this recommended action alternative. In plain English, it says, "Hold on, folks. Before we go whole-hog in leasing all this land for something that we still aren't sure will work, let's make sure that it can be done and that it can be done safely. And we'll let you try on over 400,000 acres of publicly-owned lands. When you get that figured out, come back and we'll talk."

This is a common sense approach and a conservative approach.

Ironically, the conservative approach is not how I would describe the reaction of some elected officials. Like U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch who blamed the Obama Administration for preventing oil companies from accessing, "nearly a trillion barrels of recoverable oil." Did he just say "recoverable?"

Right. Senator Hatch's comments remind me of another headline that reads "Shale Will Yield Gasoline Supply." Only thing, I wasn't around when this one was written. Senator Hatch wasn't either. This one ran in the New York Times ... in 1916.

-- Tim Wagner, Sierra Club's Resilient Habitats Campaign/image: Argonne National Laboratory

Climate deniers can't get their stories straight. They'll say the world is warming, but it's not due to human activity. Then they'll say the world is cooling. Or rather, it was warming but now it's cooling, so don't worry.

Meanwhile, scientists continue to use ... science! to explain our planet's climate. For example, this week a study was released that sheds light on the Little Ice Age that took place centuries ago. Namely, that this cold period happened because of four violent volcanic eruptions. The ice age lasted centuries because the eruptions probably triggered a lasting chain reaction in the ocean currents, "affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries," says the study's co-author.

Previously, scientists thought a drastic drop in solar activity played a role in causing this cold era. But "this study showed that even if the Sun were less active, and therefore not warming the Earth as much, it would have had little effect," writes science blogger Phil Plait. The Little Ice Age ended with the commencement of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

The point here is that scientists use data and evidence to draw conclusions. Not talking points. And the consensus says that the planet is warming at an unnatural rate because of human activity.

Unfortunately, some in the media in recent weeks have perpetuated the myth of an upcoming mini-ice age even though no one in the science community is making such predictions. The above video, by Peter Sinclair of the "Climate Crocks of the Week" YouTube series, showcases the perfect example of cable news gone awry with distortions and fabrications. Sinclair in the video then tracks down and interviews an actual scientist, something some media outlets rarely take the time to do.

-- Brian Foley

This article originally appeared on Coming Clean.

Have you ever had to turn away millions of dollars? It sounds crazy, but here's why the Sierra Club chose to do exactly that.

In 2010, soon after I became the organization's executive director, I learned that beginning in 2007 the Sierra Club had received more than $26 million from individuals or subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy, one of the country's largest natural gas companies. At the same time I learned about the donation, we at the Club were also hearing from scientists and from local Club chapters about the risks that natural gas drilling posed to our air, water, climate, and people in their communities. We cannot accept money from an industry we need to change. Very quickly, the board of directors, with my strong encouragement, cut off these donations and rewrote our gift acceptance policy. Let me tell you how it came about. 

In the fall of 2005, Sierra Club staff and volunteer leaders agreed to make the enormous challenge of climate disruption the Club's highest priority. By that time, we had already begun to have great success with our Beyond Coal campaign, which had started in 2002, and which had already stopped the construction of several dozen new coal-fired power plants.

This Beyond Coal initiative has continued to have unparalleled success working with literally hundreds of other organizations, small and large, and using grassroots power to stop more than 160 new coal plants and prevent 500 million tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere. Sierra Club activists are now fighting Big Coal pollution in all 50 states and on college campuses nationwide. Today, the Sierra Club is not just focusing on stopping new plants from being built but is also accelerating efforts to retire old and dirty coal plants nationwide.

As this campaign was gearing up, the Sierra Club board of directors, working with the best science at the time and with extensive input from staff and volunteers, determined that natural gas, while far from ideal as a fuel source, might play a necessary role in helping us reach the clean energy future our children deserve. It was also during this time, in 2007, that the first contributions to the Sierra Club were made from entities or individuals associated with Chesapeake Energy. The idea was that we shared at least one common purpose -- to move our country away from dirty coal.

The big challenge, however, is what follows coal. How do we keep the lights on as we move quickly to an economy powered by clean, renewable energy? During the period that the Sierra Club first started receiving donations, several of our local chapters were becoming increasingly alarmed by dangerous and disruptive natural gas industry practices in their communities -- particularly horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a technique where millions of gallons of water, laced with other ingredients (including, often, toxic chemicals) are pumped into rock to release gas deposits. Gradually, more and more legitimate questions were raised about the risks that fracking poses to our air, water, communities, and indeed our climate.

By the time I assumed leadership of the Club in March 2010, our view of natural gas had changed -- so I made sure our policy did, too. We created a strong natural gas campaign comprised of staff and volunteer leaders. Some chapters sought to establish tough safeguards at the state and federal level to protect their air and water; others sought to suspend fracking completely until those standards were in place. By mid-August 2010, with gas industry practices and our policies increasingly in conflict, I recommended to the Board, and it agreed, to end the funding relationship between the Club and the gas industry, and all fossil fuel companies or executives.

Our position today could not be more clear: We still need to move America beyond coal, as quickly as we can while taking care of the workers in the mines and at coal-burning utilities. And as we retire these coal plants, we'll need to replace them with as much clean energy as we possibly can. In the process, we'll use as little gas as possible and work to ensure that the gas that is used is produced as responsibly as possible.

It's time to stop thinking of natural gas as a "kinder, gentler" energy source. What's more, we do not have an effective regulatory system in this country to address the risks that gas drilling poses on our health and communities. The scope of the problems from under-regulated drilling, as well as a clearer understanding of the total carbon pollution that results from both drilling and burning gas, have made it plain that, as we phase out coal, we need to leapfrog over gas whenever possible in favor of truly clean energy. Instead of rushing to see how quickly we can extract natural gas, we should be focusing on how to be sure we are using less -- and safeguarding our health and environment in the meantime.

The Sierra Club opposes any natural gas development that poses unacceptable toxic risks to our land, water, and air. We insist that the volume and content of all fracking fluids and flowback should be disclosed, and that all toxics should be eliminated. There should be proper treatment, management, and disposal of both fracking fluids and toxic flowback. Fracking should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that drinking water is protected and that all cumulative impacts can be mitigated. And, of course, many beautiful areas and important watersheds across this country should be off-limits to drilling.

Exempting the natural gas industry from environmental protections was a terrible idea. It looks even dumber today, when the real risks that natural gas drilling poses to water supplies and critical watersheds are that much more apparent.

Ultimately, the only safe, smart, and responsible way to address our nation's energy needs is to look beyond coal, oil, and gas, and focus on clean, efficient energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. It's clear to countries around the world that the most successful 21st-century economies will be based on using energy that is safe, secure, and sustainable. Let's get to work building that economy right here at home.

-- Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director

“Don’t think it can’t get any worse, because it can.” Flip Saunders, former Washington Wizards head coach, said that just before getting fired after starting 2-15 in this year’s NBA season. He might as well have been talking about the transportation bill being rammed through the House of Representatives by Republican leadership.

Earlier this week House Republicans unveiled their 5-year transportation bill, which would eviscerate our nation’s bedrock environmental review laws, eliminate dedicated funding for biking and walking infrastructure, cut funding for Amtrak, and allow traditional highway widening projects to qualify for funds meant to improve air quality and reduce congestion.

To add insult to injury, House Republicans aim to pay for part of their bad transportation policy by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off Florida’s Gulf coast and everywhere in between. Indeed, the bills passed yesterday by the House Natural Resources committee read like a wish list for Big Oil.

That’s bad, but you guessed it, it gets worse. This morning, the House Ways and Means Committee announced that it would consider their title, which provides the funding structure for the transportation bill. Historically the federal gas tax has been split between highway and transit, with the vast majority going to highways, a deal which was struck during the Reagan administration. The bill released by the Ways and Means would upset decades of agreement, putting all gas tax and drilling revenues towards highways, then paying for transit out of the general fund.

In practical terms, this is a cynical attempt to push public transit off the rails. By supporting public transit with money from the Treasury’s general fund, House Republicans are throwing transit into the ring to compete with all other national funding priorities, jeopardizing its historically consistent stream of funding.

As each part of the House transportation bill is released, it is increasingly clear that House Republicans are intent on delivering a sweetheart deal to Big Oil, not seriously legislating. Fortunately, today the Senate Banking committee is considering the transit title of their transportation bill, which is a step forward for transit and supported on a bipartisan basis.

The House transportation bill is extremely bad, but being written by the most anti-environmental Congress in history, don’t think for a second it can’t get worse.

Tell your member of Congress today to oppose this bill.

-- Jesse Prentice-Dunn, Associate Washington Rep for the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

When most people think of the work that has yet to be done as the two-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster approaches, they envision black beaches, dying trees, and distressed marine life. Now a new noise is gaining volume in the wake of this mess and it couldn't be more of a head-turner -- cowbells. As strange as it sounds, government officials have begun to divert a fragment of their attention upstream to the rural communities of the five Gulf States.  

This interest has been gaining ground since the U.S. Department of Agriculture unveiled a plan last month to reduce the dead zone, and improve water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. An article from the Associated Press outlines the strategy. The project, dubbed the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, will be stretched over a three-year period, and is funded by a hefty $50 million endowment from the federal government. This is a huge increase as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has struggled to distribute precious little finances to many communities in the region. 

The money will be spent on projects that will help farms function in more efficient, environmentally friendly ways. Officials from the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force report that changes as small as a trough or a fence to keep livestock from entering nearby rivers that feed into Gulf waters will help improve recovery efforts. When an excess of nutrients from fertilizer and/or cow manure is present, alga grows at an exponential rate, consuming more oxygen than it can produce, starving the water of sustenance. The resulting "dead zones" inhibit procreation and growth of other organisms, a process known as eutrophication.

In more demanding situations, the funds can be used to purchase heavy-duty equipment that can turn large amounts of soil or plow straighter, longer rows. These machines are also a huge help in containing livestock pollutants, but represent larger projects and come at bulkier costs.

Past attempts to aid farmers have only gone so far. Dallas Ford, a ranch owner from Tivoli, Texas, received funds from the NRCS to build fences around his land, but estimates as much as $20,000 in contracts are still needed to finish the work. Farmers like Mr. Ford can apply for aid as it is needed, but it is up to the NRCS to sift through the multitude of appeals and decide where funds are most appropriate and which will have the greatest impact on water quality. This presents a new problem, as an eleven-fold increase in funds is substantial, the extent to which it can help across the entire Gulf region is to be seen. 

--Maxwell Gerson, Sierra Club Louisiana Intern/image: NOAA

Rally go-ers in Albany, NY. Photo by Jessica Riehl.

On January 23, 2012, more than 800 New Yorkers descended on the New York State Capitol for the 2012 Hydro-Fracking Day of Action organized by the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The event was organized to call on elected officials to safeguard vital water resources, air quality, public health, and the environment from industrial gas drilling by means of high volume hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fracking uses high-pressure injection of water, sand, and unknown chemicals to free natural gas from shale deposits.

"Sierra Club's Atlantic Chapter joined many other folks from across the state last week in standing up for New York's clean water and clean air,” said Deb Nardone, Sierra Club Natural Gas Reform Campaign Director. "Right now, the natural gas industry is fracking across the country with few safeguards in place to protect the communities living with it."

For the rally, the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter garnered the support of nearly 50 other grass roots organizations, and more than 200 members of the Atlantic Chapter attended the rally as well.  Activists from every quarter of the State blanketed the Capital in Albany and spoke to nearly all members of the Legislature. 

The rally landed multiple media hits, and here’s video of some of the rally’s attendees telling why it was important for them to be there.

 
"New York is determined to not become the next fracking victim, and they showed that at the rally,” said Nardone.

Congrats to the following Sierra Club staffers and volunteers for their hard work organizing the rally: Chapter Conservation Organizer Roger Down; Chapter Conservation Associate Caitlin Pixley; Chapter Conservation Associate and volunteers Gusti Swartz and Kate Bartholomew; Arthur Kuypers, Assistant Conservation Chair; Chris Burger, Zero Waste Chair; Executive Committee members Hal Bauer, Jane Fasullo, Susan Leifer, Art Kline; and many more.

You can learn more about the natural gas fight in New York in this column by Sierra Club Conservation Director Sarah Hodgdon.

-- Cross-posted on Sierra Club's Scrapbook blog.

That’s the question we have been asking the U.S. Government over and over, after discovering their steadfast support for plans to build an extremely expensive, extremely dirty coal plant in Kosovo. We first sounded the alarm over this project months ago and despite essentially admitting that our concerns are valid, the State Department and the World Bank are recklessly pushing forward a plan to leave the tiny country saddled with a heavily polluting new coal plant along with unsustainable levels of debt at a time when the EU’s debt crisis threatens the global economy.

So how do we know the project is so bad? We commissioned expert analysis from a former chief Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement officer who found glaring flaws (check out our initial analysis here) in the project design.

First and foremost he found that the plant will likely cost 2-3 times what project proponents claim. These costs would be borne by a country struggling to rebuild after years of war and would take the form of foreign debt that will have to be repaid by raising rates on average citizens. This is eerily similar to what happened with the World Bank’s last coal loan to Eskom and has led the nations leading nightly news program to ask probing questions about a “European Eskom.”

Even worse, he found that Kosovo doesn’t even need the power– they simply don’t have enough base load demand to justify such a large power project. In fact the project would lead to a generating capacity that is three times higher than existing demand and four times higher when corrected for avoidable losses.

This means Kosovo consumers (or the government) would have to service over a billion euro in debt at a time instead of investing in what Kosovo does need – an upgrade of its leaky electricity grid (an ancient relic left over from the soviet era that loses up to 40% of its supplies) and new forms of peak power (juice to power the lights when people wake up and when they come home from work). Reducing the losses from this leaky bucket, combined with job creating energy efficiency programs, completely eliminates the need for a dirty, expensive new coal plant.  

So how did State Department and the World Bank respond? Just months after we sent them our findings, the World Bank released a new report that supported our conclusions: a new coal plant will cost twice as much as they first estimated, and the country does indeed have significant clean energy potential. But, their central conclusion remained unchanged: Kosovo simply must have an expensive, un-needed, dirty new coal plant (you can see our rebuttal reaffirming that Kosovo doesn’t need a new coal plant here).

Given this response, it is clear that exploring alternative energy options that don’t threaten people’s health, raise their rates, or threaten unsustainable levels of debt are simply not in the cards at the State Department or the World Bank. As a result the country has become an epicenter of a struggle between local communities and powerful international players over the future direction of their young country.

Our members are standing firm with the citizens of Kosovo demanding the State Department relinquish support for this dirty new coal plant.

This project would rob a young generation of Kosovo citizens of the clean, healthy future they deserve. Join us in telling the State Department No Coal in Kosovo.

-- Co-written by Justin Guay of the Sierra Club International Campaign and Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.

After a week of public hearings in Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco, we can safely say that cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks are a popular commodity.

More than 500 people, including concerned citizens, public health officials, veterans, small business owners, environmentalists and consumer advocates, came out to testify in support of the Obama administration’s proposal to strengthen fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for cars and light trucks. 

Thanks to these standards from the U.S. EPA and National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), the average new car you’ll see on the lot in 2025 will get 54.5 mpg and spew 35% less carbon pollution than the models in 2016.  That’s a big deal – and a big win for American families.

So just how broad is public support for these proposed standards?  Very!  Poll after poll has shown that Americans overwhelmingly support better fuel efficiency.  But this support is more than just a checked box on a survey – it’s real stories from real people.

When I testified in Detroit last Tuesday, I was inspired by the near-unanimous support for 54.5 mpg cars from the more than 100 people who came out to give their reasons for supporting clean cars.  Nearly everyone from the United Auto Workers’ President and members to local citizens concerned about air pollution from smog and climate disruption voiced united support for the standards.  

It was great to have the hearing kicked off by Michigan Congressman John Dingell, who praised the standards and said “I am pleased that EPA and NHTSA are joining together to reach out and listen to what the American people have to say.”  The Go60 mpg coalition, which the Sierra Club is a part of, was featured in the New York Times’ piece on the hearing.

In Philadelphia last Thursday, we saw record turnout for an EPA hearing with more than 150 people coming out to stand up for clean cars including Sierra Club President Robin Mann (pictures above at the left).  There were so many moving testimonies – including Retired Lieutenant General Richard Zilmer, who spoke about his first hand experience with the dangers of depending on a fuel supply line in Iraq, and Colleen Kennedy, a local resident with serious health conditions that have been exacerbated by smog pollution from cars.

 Finally on Tuesday of this week, EPA and NHTSA held their last public hearing in San Francisco where Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune testified and called these standards the “biggest single step we’ve ever taken to move beyond oil and tackle climate disruption.”  Check out the rest of his testimony here.

The lone voice of opposition at all three hearings:  the National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA).  Yet with several individual dealers coming out to testify in support of the standards, even the industry publication Automotive News knows that NADA needs to stop exaggerating the costs and underselling the benefits of the standards.

The Sierra Club live-tweeted each hearing from @SierraClubLive.  Here are some of the highlights:

•  @SierraClubLive  NADA rep claiming that car buyers don't look at mpg. Yet 3/4's of Americans support strong #cleancars standards: bit.ly/xpL2sT
• @SierraClubLive  Chevy dealer Thiel: "We're going to go on with this until 2025 and I'll tell ya what, we're ready for it!" #cleancars
• @SierraClubLive  Big shout out to the Raging Grannies for telling us to clean up our cars in song at #Detroit hearing! #cleancars
• @SierraClubLive  For a sense of the ratio of those supporting vs opposing #cleancars standards today, see the score from Brady vs Tebow last wkd
• @SierraClubLive  Robin Mann: "The planet is screaming and the time has come for us to stop turning a deaf ear." #cleancars #beyondoil
• @SierraClubLive  Rabbi Waskow: "I call it global scorching. Warming is too pleasant." #cleancars #CleanAir #Philly
• @SierraClubLive  .@Sierra_Club volunteer Bryan Crenshaw shows a picture of his son. 54.5 mpg is about our kid's future. #cleancars pic.twitter.com/2jeOt5C0
• @SierraClubLive  Local City Council Pres. Jeanette MacNeille: "For me as an asthmatic, #cleancars mean less trips to the emergency rm"pic.twitter.com/XRlzhu86
• @SierraClubLive  Wow, amazing defense of the role of @EPAgov & #cleancars from Colleen Kennedy who has a serious heart condition.pic.twitter.com/Su93ArSf
• @SierraClubLive  #cleancars are incredibly popular! Support vs opposition at today's #Philly hearing about 100 to 1. NADA took its toys & went home
• @SierraClubLive  Brune: As a father of two young kids, I'm relieved to know that the cars they'll drive in the years to come will use less oil. #cleancars

These hearings were not the only opportunity the public has to voice support for strong new clean cars standards.  You can send your comments until February13th.  Don’t wait -- help us show how broad and deep support is for clean cars!

 And, if you enjoyed reading these tweets from the clean cars hearings, follow @SierraClubLive and you can check out yesterday’s live updates from the DC Auto Show.  After years of saying they couldn’t make new cars or trucks that use less oil, it was clear from the showroom floor that the auto industry is in a race to do just that.

-- Ann Mesnikoff, Director of the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

Beyond Coal organizer Glen Hooks stands with a turbine signed by community members.

Not one month into the new year and we are already enjoying exciting energy developments out of North Carolina, Georgia, and now Arkansas.

Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), a subsidiary of American Electric Power, announced today a power purchasing agreement of more than 400 megawatts of clean, renewable energy from wind farms in surrounding states. That amount of wind will "more than quadruple" SWEPCO's wind energy portfolio, boost the region's wind-energy sector, and make the air healthier for all living downstream.

This gust of wind-energy purchasing by the energy company was the result of a December settlement with the Sierra Club and Audubon. The settlement requires AEP to also retire Welsh 2, a dirty coal plant upwind of Arkansas in northeastern Texas. Together these two pieces will offset pollution from SWEPCO's new coal plant in Arkansas.

"Today, as a result of our recent legal settlement, hundreds of megawatts of clean wind energy will power homes and businesses in our region for the next 20 to 25 years," said Glen Hooks of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. "Unlike dirty coal, which pollutes our air, water, and communities, wind power produces zero pollution. And, this wind investment will save customers money because wind's fuel costs are zero."

SWEPCO powers more than a half-million people in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Northeast Texas. Prior to the settlement, SWEPCO's wind capacity totaled 110 megawatts. The utility expects this roughly $8 billion investment in clean energy to lower overall costs to customers by an average of a 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour over the next ten years.

This is just one more example of a sweeping clean energy trend across the country and reflects what the energy experts are saying: Coal's future is dimming and clean energy is taking its place. People want clean energy. They want healthy air. And over the past three years the clean-energy revolution has been a bright job-creating story as we dig out of a tough economic recession. It's been a great 2012 so far, but we've just gotten started.

-- Photo courtesy Glen Hooks

Hundreds of pairs of ears are still ringing from the sound of whistles blowing on the West Lawn of the Capitol yesterday afternoon, as protesters dressed as referees to call foul on the pipeline of money flowing between Big Oil and the halls of Congress. 

The Sierra Club joined 350.org, the Energy Action Coalition, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, in organizing the event, which lauded President Obama’s recent Keystone Pipeline decision, while demanding an end to the dirty influence of Big Oil money in government.

Headlining the list of speakers were Senator Bernie Sanders (I – VT) (pictured above) and Representative Steve Cohen (D – TN), who both decried the political concessions bought by oil companies.  Said Sanders:

“We’ve got to end all of the tax breaks for the oil companies and coal companies and I’m going to introduce legislation to do just that.”

Cohen followed by adding:

“For too long, Big Oil has exercised far too much control in Washington.  It’s time for the people to stand up to their vaults of money and army of lobbyists and work to restore the government by the people, for the people.”

The protest proceeded to march to the office of the American Petroleum Institute, throwing penalty flags and calling a “democratic foul.”  The whistles were loud and the message was clear: it is high time to take the Big Oil money out of the halls of Congress.

-- David Loss, Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign. Photos by Sally McGuire

With college basketball season heating up, and teams trying to pad their resumes in the hope of securing an NCAA tournament bid, Congress has some upcoming March Madness of its own.  The current surface transportation law, which covers highways, transit, freight rail, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, expires on March 31.

The last time Congress succeeded in passing a long-term surface transportation bill was back in 2005, with the passage of SAFETEA-LU (“Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users”).  That law expired in 2009, but has seen multiple short-term extensions meant to continue the funding and policy in the old law while legislators hash out a new bill.  This time, however, Congress seems seriousabout a negotiating a new, long-term deal.

It won’t be easy, however, as the House and Senate have dueling proposals, and differ on serious issues like funding sources and length of authorization.  Though still incomplete, the Senate bill would be a two-year provision that would greatly consolidate the federal transportation program.  This would include strong safety and performance provisions, and would help improve the condition of our roads and bridges.  Unfortunately, this might also mean less funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 

To reach the finish line, the Senate must still pass a transit section, as well as funding for the proposal, as revenues from the gas tax are no longer sufficient to cover the need for our massive transportation system.

The House is set to release a transportation bill that is expected to roll back environmental safeguards and squeeze funding for cleaner transportation choices, such as biking and walking. Worse yet, the House bill aims to plug that funding gap with revenues from oil drilling, even in some of our wildest places, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (funny, we seem to remember one oil gusher that couldn’t seem to be plugged…).

Ultimately, these bills fail to strike at the root of America’s transportation troubles: crumbling infrastructure and crippling dependence on oil.  The current state of disrepair of our transportation infrastructure is well documented. The Senate proposal admirably seeks to repair and maintain our existing infrastructure; hopefully the House will follow suit. Unfortunately, the proposals being floated by each chamber will need to be strengthened significantly to adequately address our dependence on oil, which is driven by transportation.

What we need is legislation focused on creating a new transportation system for the 21st century, one that addresses our crumbling infrastructure and helps decouple transportation from oil.  What might that bill look like?  Here’s a start:

• A provision to repair and maintain our infrastructure.  For the sake of both our health and our wallets, we desperately need to repair our ageing infrastructure, as poorly maintained roads cost the average driver thousands of dollars a year.  The Senate bill does include a provision that requires states to set targets for the condition of their infrastructure and focus road spending on repair and maintenance. It is important that the House include one as well.  Before we start building new roads and bridges, we need to pay the upkeep on the ones we already have.

• A focus on building a transportation network that maximizes travel options and accessibility, not one that encourages driving as the default.  Alternatives to automobile travel have always been forced to take a backseat, thanks to the help of disproportionate highway funding and commuter subsidies for driving.  Instead of cutting funding to programs ranging from pedestrian to rail infrastructure, we need to prioritize these alternatives while building and retrofitting communities so people have the option to walk, bike or take transit.

• No transportation funding from expanded drilling.  Opening public lands to oil drilling would destroy fragile ecosystems from the Gulf of Mexico to the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and endanger public health.  And funding our transportation system with oil revenues is a surefire way to guarantee an oil-dependent future, complete with the smog and carbon pollution that come with it.  We need to tell Congress to say “NO!” to funding transportation through expanded oil drilling.

This March is an opportunity to overhaul our nation’s transportation policy and set a new course for the future — a future where Americans have safe, convenient options to get around and we don’t need oil to fuel our economy.  It’s a chance to set a new course that can cure our addiction oil.  Sticking to the old one would be madness.

-- Jesse Prentice-Dunn and David Loss, Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

While President Obama and the State Department wisely decided to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline last week, a new joint Big Oil-GOP plan would tie the pipeline to important tax cut legislation, threatening to sink a bill that would save 160 million Americans hundreds of dollars a year.

President Obama has already said "no" to Keystone once, declaring that the risky project was not in our national interest.  A 1,700 mile pipeline running from Alberta, Canada to Texas, Keystone XL would move highly toxic and corrosive tar sands crude over some of our nation’s most critical water sources. And it would be run by Transcanada Corporation, a company that’s last pipeline spilled oil a dozen times in its first year of operation.  

Grassroots activists achieved a huge victory for clean air, clean water, and the health of American families by working tirelessly to stop Keystone XL in its tracks. But the President’s decision is not stopping Big Oil executives in their relentless pursuit to profit at any cost.

On Monday afternoon, officials from Transcanada directly advised Republican lawmakers on legislative strategy to revive the Keystone XL proposal during a Capitol Hill meeting according to a Politico report.

While most Americans couldn't get the time of day from a member of Congress, Congressional Republicans always seem to find time to get together with their Big Oil patrons. From securing generous subsidies to BP and Exxon to fighting against fuel efficiency standards, the results of their collaboration are rarely good for American families -- and this time was no different.

Following their strategy session, Republicans unanimously agreed to attach a provision forcing approval of Keystone XL to any viable bill –- including the upcoming extension of a middle-class payroll tax cut. In other words, they are plotting to push this highly risky pipeline on our country by tacking it onto a bill critically needed by American families, forcing legislators to vote for Big Oil's pet project in order to provide tax relief for working Americans.

Now, while millions are struggling to make ends meet, Big Oil billionaires and their political friends are huddling behind closed doors to hatch a scheme that will hold tax relief for the middle class hostage. They are proving yet again that they are willing to sacrifice anything –- whether it's the health or the wealth of American families –- to pad the profits of a few Big Oil CEOs.

This shameless tactic is clear evidence that our fight against Big Oil on Keystone XL is not over, and we will continue to have to stand up to deep-pocketed attacks against the air we breathe and the water we drink.

-- Tony Cani, National Political Director

Start spreading the news.

A plan to harness the power of the East River's currents in New York City has received the green light it needed thanks to a commercial license issued yesterday by the federal government.

The project is designed to generate more than 1 megawatt of power for the thousands of residents living on Roosevelt Island between Manhattan and Queens. The renewable power source, known as tidal power, would come from turbines installed on the river's floor. Verdant, which has been working on the project since 2002 and has already installed a handful of turbines, wants 30 generators in the river by 2015.

It's a first-of-its-kind project and it is worth watching to see whether tidal power will become a viable force in the clean-energy sector. Judging by the video above, I'd hate to be a fish caught in a tidal power farm. However, in this video interview on GristTV at about the 3:50 mark, a Verdant representative says that there have been no problems. 

"The largest impact that is unavoidable is the fact that there are rotating blades that are heavy in the water," he says. Because of that "there's a concern of impact with fish, the physical striking of fish, and generally changing the ecosystem as a result. There are also diving birds here in the East River. Thus far we have not seen any negative effects on the ecosystem."

-- Brian Foley

Bill Maher recently sat down with Bill Moyers.

A new report today from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) confirms that America is moving beyond coal, though the EIA understates how dim coal's prospects are. According to the 2012 energy outlook released today, coal-fired electricity will continue its steady decline in 2012, opening market space for clean energy.

For many years the Energy Information Agency has exaggerated coal’s prospects for the future, and every year has had to downgrade its projections. Today EIA again downgraded coal's future.

In the 2012 Annual Energy Outlook presentation about new coal generation they stated that no new coal generation is added “beyond that which is under construction,” and that coal’s percent of electricity generation will shrink from the current 44 percent to 39 percent between 2010 and 2035. This is noteworthy, since in its 2010 Outlook (released in 2011) the EIA projected that coal would drop to 44% of electricity generation by 2035, but just one year later the country already hit 44%.

Some key projections from the EIA's 2010-2035 report:

• At least 33,000 megawatts worth of existing coal-fired power plants are expected to retire in the coming decades, not including any retirements due to the recently-finalized mercury and air toxics standard from the Environmental Protection Agency. (For reference, an average-sized coal-burning power plant is approximately 500 megawatts).

• The biggest difference from last year’s EIA projection is that more coal retirements will be driven by rising coal prices, state renewable energy standards and EPA clean air standards. All these signs point to reduced market share for coal and expanded market share for clean energy. 

• Coal’s market share of U.S. electricity production is expected to continue to drop, from 44 to 39 percent.

• No new coal plants are predicted to be constructed in the time period, beyond those few that are already under construction.

• The share of electricity production from clean energy sources (including hydropower and biomass) should increase from 10 to 16 percent during the time period.

• Overall electricity demand growth is expected to remain below one percent annually.

As I noted before, EIA has frequently overstated coal’s place in our electricity needs. Here is a sampling of what EIA said in 2006, 2008, and 2010.

2006 Annual Energy Outlook: 

The coal share is projected to decline slightly, from 50 percent in 2004 to 49 percent in 2020, before increasing to 57 percent in 2030. Additions to coal-fired generating capacity in the AEO-2006 reference case are projected to total 102 gigawatts between 2004 and 2025, as compared with 86 gigawatts in AEO2005. Over the entire period from 2004 to 2030, 174 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity is projected to be added in the AEO2006 reference case, including 19 gigawatts at CTL plants.”

2008 Annual Energy Outlook:

“the coal share increases from 49 to 54 percent” between 2008 and 2030.  They further state that the US will need to install 263GW of new generating capacity in this period and 40 percent will be coal.”

2010 Annual Energy Outlook: 

In the Reference case, without (greenhouse gas) regulations, coal accounts for the largest share of total electricity generation (Figure 61). With slow growth in electricity demand, little new coal-fired capacity is added, and the coal share falls from 48 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2035.

Even today, EIA’s projections remain far too rosy for coal, though. While the EIA estimates that over the next 25 years approximately 33,000 megawatts of existing coal power will retire, the Sierra Club has identified over 38,000 megawatts of existing coal power that has retired or announced an upcoming retirement since January 2010 – and more are expected soon. There are about 340,000 megawatts of coal in the United States as of January 2010.

The data paint a brighter future where coal mining, burning and coal ash disposal does not threaten thousands of communities across the United States. Coal is being replaced with cleaner energy choices.  Here at the Sierra Club we are working overtime to help accelerate this trend by preventing the construction of new coal plants, retiring and replacing existing coal plants with clean energy, and keeping the large U.S. coal reserves out of world markets.

--Bruce Nilles, Senior Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.

The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign works in partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies and a nationwide coalition of allies to retire one-third of the nation's aging coal plants by 2020, replacing them with clean energy like wind and solar by 2030. Coal plants are the largest sources of climate disruption and toxic air pollution like mercury, soot and carbon pollution.

Last month the Durban climate talks established the Green Fund which is billed as the world’s premier source of clean energy finance – once it gets up and running. The problem is innovative entrepreneurs who are trying to deliver on the United Nation’s Sustainable Energy For All goals needed financing yesterday.

Social entrepreneurs are doing amazing work providing energy services to the poor but financing for this segment is incredibly tough to come by. Which is why, much like the Green Fund, delivering energy access for the poor could benefit from innovative sources of finance. Enter Arc Finance, which is pursuing an innovative source with tremendous potential – harnessing the billions of dollars in remittance flows sent each year by immigrants living in developed countries to their relatives in less developed countries.

In a must-read paper, Arc Finance lays out the gargantuan opportunity remittance flows present. Globally they increased 6% to reach $325 billion in 2011. Of that total 10% to 25% were used for household energy purchases in markets they surveyed. If these numbers held true across the global market a clean energy access finance opportunity of $32.5 - $81.25 billion annually exists.

To put that in perspective the Green Fund is supposed to reach $100 billion by 2020 (though its currently empty) and the entire clean energy market was only $260 billion in 2011. If even 1% of that market opportunity were tapped the world could add $3 to $8 billion annually to clean energy access coffers. This would be roughly the size of a World Bank energy portfolio, but dedicated entirely to clean energy access and not costly grid extensions. Most importantly, it would go to those households that need it most.

Combined with rapid innovation in energy service delivery at the bottom of the pyramid it is entirely possible to harness these flows. Mobile banking systems for example enable remittances to be sent directly from a mobile phone anywhere in the world, to one in rural India. Taken one step further - by connecting a mobile phone enabled remittance flow to a pay-as-you-go clean energy system – mobile banking lays the foundation for a truly revolutionary stream of clean energy financing. The best part is these systems exist today.

India’s Leapfrog Opportunity

Nowhere is the opportunity larger than India. In 2010 the subcontinent received an estimated $55 billion in remittance flows. It also just so happens to be home to the largest number of energy poor households in the world, near universal cell phone penetration, and tremendous innovation in energy service delivery for the poor.

In short, India has all the ingredients for success, it just requires a vision that is not limited by the aid trap (that clean energy is too costly for the poor to pay for themselves) or the grid fallacy (that costly grid extensions are the only way to deliver energy for the poor). The global community can continue to talk the talk on energy access or we can put our money and effort where our mouth is. 2012 is the year to make clean energy access happen, innovative sources of financing like harnessing remittance flows are the way to make it happen.

-- Justin Guay, Sierra Club International Program

Hot off the presses:

Exxon Mobil agreed Thursday to pay $1.6 million in penalties to the state of Montana over water pollution caused by a pipeline break last summer that fouled dozens of miles of shoreline along the scenic Yellowstone River.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality director Richard Opper said the penalties in the case mark the largest in the agency's history. The Texas oil company will pay $300,000 in cash and spend $1.3 million on future environmental projects, according to a copy of the document obtained by The Associated Press.

Also Thursday, Exxon increased its estimate of how much crude spilled into the river during the July 1 accident near Laurel to 1,509 barrels, or more than 63,000 gallons. That's up from earlier estimates of 1,000 barrels spilled — a number that Gov. Brian Schweitzer had disputed as too low.

Remember, if the filthy Keystone XL tar sands pipe ever saw the light of day, a similar blowout would make Exxon's Yellowstone River blunder look like an innocent hiccup:

It would irreparably harm the environment, compromise the Ogallala Aquifer, and affect perhaps millions of Americans in the Midwest. That's because the Keystone XL pipe, if approved, would be pumping more than 20 times the amount the Exxon pipeline was delivering before it ruptured.

-- Brian Foley

(Above) Sierra Club President Robin Mann spoke at a press conference in Dimock where the Sierra Club urged the EPA to take a closer look at the water.

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced their plans to perform water sampling for approximately 60 homes in Dimock, PA.  They also announced their intention to begin providing clean water to four families whose water became contaminated by Cabot Corp after they fracked for natural gas in Dimock.

The nightmare started for families in Dimock, PA in 2008 when Cabot Corp came to town with the promise of profits and a better life from the natural gas that lay under the ground.  Almost immediately after they began to frack wells, families saw a severe difference in their water quality.  Since then, eleven families in Dimock continued to share their water horror story with state and federal regulators but no one seemed to believe them.

Finally, after four years of worrying where the next bottle of clean water will come from, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that their water is not safe to drink and they will be providing water.  The Sierra Club cannot thank the EPA enough for their decision to help these families and continue to learn more about what Cabot Corp did to the water in Dimock.

The industry likes to claim that each state does a great job regulating drilling activity and they do not need additional scrutiny.  However, this story out of Dimock shows the need for an agency like the EPA to step in because a state agency could not or would not correct a problem caused by fracking.

Fracking is dangerous business and needs safeguards in place at the federal level.  Anyone who thinks states do a good job monitoring fracking needs to visit Dimock, PA and ask the families who became victims of Cabot Corp 4 years ago.  The Sierra Club will continue to help these families and work with the EPA to ensure a permanent clean water solution as soon as possible.

- Deb Nardone, Director of Sierra Club’s Natural Gas Reform Campaign

Yesterday, the City of Minneapolis released its first ever Bicycle Account (PDF), which reports on the city’s progress towards being a better place for bicyclists - or as we see it, giving more of its citizens safe transportation choices.  

Some of the great improvements:

• The city has seen a 47% increase in bicyclists counted annually from 2007 to 2011, with a 25% increase happening between 2010 and 2011

• 600+ new bike street-markings and four new bicycle boulevards added in 2011

• 75% increase in the miles of on-street bikeways from 2010-2011, bringing the total miles of bikeways to 167

• Safety in numbers! Fewer bicycle crashes despite more bicycle commuters

The Sierra Club’s North Star Chapter in Minnesota has been hard at work pushing forward this progress, working with the city of Minneapolis to finalize its Bicycle Master Plan, focusing attention to investments in underserved communities and disparities in bike infrastructure. 

The Chapter has also been working to involve community members to push the city and state to implement its recently-passed “complete streets” policy** on major roads like Franklin Avenue, Central Avenue and Snelling Avenue, including  better pedestrian crossings and bicycle safety improvements like bike lanes. 

To emphasize the local preferences for complete streets improvements on Snelling Avenue, one of the most dangerous sections of state highway in the system, the Chapter involved over 200 neighbors in a series of community meetings held with partner organizations.  By involving community members to push for the incorporation of complete streets design elements during resurfacing, the Chapter is encouraging the Minnesota Department of Transportation to apply these design concepts as common practice to all future preservation projects.

In addition to advocating for physical improvements to the city’s bicycle infrastructure, the Chapter has worked to build up a culture that encourages bicycling in Minneapolis, hosting and co-sponsoring 100-person plus group rides like the Tour de Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition Joy Ride and participating in the opening of Nice Ride bike share stations on the north side of the city.  

While the city has made some great strides in 2011, we’re looking forward to more - more bikes, more choices, and more ways for Minnesotans to move beyond (tar sands) oil.

In Minnesota?  Get involved with the North Star Chapter, or learn more about its work here.

**Complete Streets policies require governments to give due consideration to all right-of-way users in the planning and design of roadways-- bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders included!

-Rachel Butler, National Conservation Organizer for the Sierra Club Green Transportation Campaign

Huge news! The Obama administration announced that it would deny a federal permit for the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, which would run 1,700 miles across six US states bringing toxic, highly corrosive tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries and ports in Texas.

The president stood up to Big Oil, backed by the voices of hundreds of thousands of activists just like you, who have built the movement to stop this dirty, dangerous oil project. 

Thank President Obama for standing up to Big Oil and rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipeline. 

I want to also thank you, our grassroots activists, who have worked so hard to get us to this point. This is a huge victory and proof that while Big Oil may have more money, we have what matters: the voice of our communities. Our victory is a victory for the boreal forest, for the Sand Hills and the Ogallala aquifer and for the protection of our climate.  

Unfortunately, the fight is not over. Over the coming weeks we will need to work hard together to defend the decision to deny Keystone XL. Big Oil companies have launched an all-out assault on the president for not doing their bidding on Keystone XL. We will undoubtedly see a barrage of misinformation on Keystone XL from Big Oil in the form of flashy ads attacking the president.

Thank the president for rejecting Keystone XL and tell him that we aren't fooled by Big Oil.

Big Oil says the pipeline would ease our pain at the pump? Nope. This is a fight about oil company profits. The pipeline will actually raise gas prices in the Midwest by 10 to 20 cents a gallon, hurting American families and American farmers and putting a damper on our fragile economy.

Oil companies say the pipeline wouldn't spill? Not buying it. The last pipeline that was built like this spilled over 12 times in the first year of production.

The oil lobby touts the economic boom and national security benefits from the project. The truth is the job numbers have been inflated and the tar sands oil is destined for export to Europe and Latin America from refineries in a Texas free trade zone -- i.e. no taxes collected.

Now is the time to speak truth to power, to support the president's decision and push back against Big Oil's lies about Keystone XL. Thank President Obama for rejecting Keystone XL.