With tax season behind us and Earth Day upon us, our friends at the Sierra Club tipped us to a handy tool to bring both topics to Congress’s attention. It’s their DIY missive builder!

I’ve taken the liberty of writing my own letter to our reps and I thought I’d share it with you:

Dear Congress,

Can I call you Conny? So, as you may already know I’m a taxpayer, and have given my fair share to our communal Uncle. I just want to make sure you and I are on the same page. How are all those subsidies and tax credits for fossil fuel production going? All done with that stuff? I know my own write-offs can’t really compare, but, I think you know what I’m getting at. I know where you’re coming from when it comes to the benefits of my friends and I paying (or what do you guys like to call it…oh right, underwriting) fuel sources that pollute the environment.

In fact, I credit some of those gorgeous Los Angeles sunsets to them. (Certainly some of those colors wouldn’t exist thanks to nature alone!) And like the hair products foisted on follicles at salons across the country, the oil that coats fur and feathers can be quite stylish. I’m not sure the ducks and otters agree with me, but c’est la vie. They’re so au natural. [Commencing eye-roll at those hippies.]

How much is Big Oil giving Uncle Sam this year, anyway? Just keeping it square, you know how that goes. Oh, by the way – I’ll totally spot you the next time you and I go out for coffee. Order the venti, even! You know I’m good for it.

Anyhoo, just wanted to say hi and hope you’re enjoying the weather (did you know that March was the most unseasonably hot ever? I know, right?). That’s all for now.

Besties,
Chris

P.S. This is from the Sierra Club’s website:

As Big Oil rakes in windfall profits, Americans are stuck with the bill. Whether we’re subsidizing their destructive drilling practices or paying to clean up their mess, Big Oil continues to see big money each year. If we are ever going to transition to clean energy solutions, the tax breaks and subsidies to Big Oil must end today.

Ask Congress to phase out subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil!

1. Personalize the message text on the right with your own words, if you wish.
2. Complete the form on Sierra Club’s site with your information.
3. Click the Send Message button to send your letter to these decision makers:* Your Senators
   * Your Representative

Share some of your own e-cards with us in the comments! We’d love to keep this chain mail going!

Editor’s Note: This is the second installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: mikebaird

Capitalizing on the pro-nuclear-power views of President Obama, privately held companies and investors, in particular Bill Gates and Nathan Mhyrvold, are investing in the development of miniature and traveling wave nuclear reactors that could use spent uranium from nuclear power plants to safely supply energy to our humble abodes.

At least entrepreneurs are talking directly about what to do to solve nuclear waste problems. Because this week the Obama Administration released its plan to reduce and put limits on the usage of the United States’ nuclear arsenal, but disappointingly failed to address the costs and impact of nuclear waste from power plants and the weapons industry, on our health and the environment.

The Nuclear Posture Review, a 49-page document, contains plenty of prose about aging nuclear warheads and facilities that are in decline, and admits these need to be revamped to better handle nuclear materials. But words like cancer, sludge and water pollution did not appear. The phrase “safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal” was repeated copiously, though.

The nuclear lobby spent almost half-a-million dollars in the last four months of 2009 to sway public and political opinion, according to Business Week. And perhaps not surprisingly, Gallup polls show that Americans are more approving of nuclear power these days than they have been in decades. They are also more willing to accept environmental suffering in exchange for more sources of energy.

This is all despite some good arguments against nuclear power from the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.

Sierra Club notes that nuclear reactors, even the safest ones, can be susceptible to natural disaster and rendered unsafe. As recently as 2007, an earthquake in Japan impacted a nuclear power plant there, releasing radioactive water into the Sea of Japan. Friends of Earth suggests that nuclear power investments are a distraction from better renewable energy and efficiency alternatives. They found that “from 1948 to 1998, the government awarded nearly $75 billion in handouts to the nuclear power industry while spending less than $15 billion on renewable energy and only about $12 billion on energy efficiency measures.”

But nuclear energy and science insiders resoundingly believe nuclear is part of the essential, global, clean energy solution. Prof. Kathryn Higley, the acting department head at Oregon State University’s Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics department, points out that some environmentalists who changed their mind and supported nuclear power, over time, include some of our favorites!

They are: Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, one of the Greenpeace founders Patrick Moore, Jared Diamond, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Guns, Germs and Steel, and Gwyneth Cravens, author of The Power to Save the World.

Some anti-nuke environmentalists, Higley believes, hold on to outdated fears. “While I’m not advocating that you go and hug a fuel rod, we understand very well by now how radiation interacts with matter,” she says. “We understand the hazards of radiation and radioactive material more than any other type of hazard, today. In fact, we use radiation and radioactive materials to diagnose and treat a variety of diseases, including cancer now.”

Higley explains that in order to meet growing demands for energy, while limiting the CO2 emissions that are produced from power facilities, we are limited currently to hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energy. Some of these low CO2 technologies are limited in their ability to expand capacity, she says, and have their own negative impacts on the environment. For example: hydro dams adversely effect salmon populations in the Northwest today, and solar works, only where it is sunny.

Waste not, want not, Higley believes: “Spent nuclear fuel shouldn’t be viewed as waste! There is so much energy left in the fuel, so it is really silly to permanently dispose of it. New fuel reprocessing techniques can reduce waste volume as well as the radiotoxicity of the residual material so that the volume of real waste is very small and…more easily stored.”

Are no nukes, good nukes to you? Or can you see a way to make the problem into the solution? Learn more about nuclear weapons, waste and how it can get recycled, with the links and resources below. Then call it like you see it, here or on Twitter @ecosalon.

Basic Reading:

- A Smartplanet.com article on the Bill Gates-backed Terrapower plan to develop “traveling wave” nuclear reactors, safe for home-use

- “Can Bill Gates and Toshiba save us from global warming? They plan a miniature traveling-wave nuclear reactor in every home, to spell the end of climate change…” – Interesting opinions on the idea of home, mini-reactors curated by blogger Richi Jennings for Computer World

- “Not that long ago, any Democratic president daring to fly a ‘More Nukes’ banner would have been fried by his own base. But Obama’s request for $54 billion in federal loan guarantees, and his State of the Union pitch for a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,’ have barely moved the ire meter… [T]here is still no solution to the radioactive-waste storage problem. Current plants produce 2,200 tons of waste a year, all of which has to be stored on-site. Do the math: That’s more than 60,000 tons over the last 30 years. Some California plants are storing their waste next to seismic faults. ” – A political op-ed by Dick Polman via the Philadelphia Inquirer

- “Energy development and energy independence are enormous issues our nation must continue to address aggressively. The economy will recover, growth will resume and energy deficiencies will, once again, be front and center as topics of major concern. That’s why it is heartening to see the Obama administration tackle energy issues head-on, with aggressive support for all forms of energy, including new nuclear plants…” A pro-nuclear argument from the Salt Lake City Tribune

- The U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management page, detailing different types of nuclear waste, and admitting that the D.O.E. lacks information about the impact of nuclear waste and possibility for true, environmental restoration around contaminated land and water

Further Resources:

The Sierra Club’s guide to nuclear waste issues

“A False Solution to Climate Crisis,” statement by Friends of the Earth, and their anti-nuclear campaign website, NuclearLie.org

An Associated Press story on recent, nuclear waste management issues and politics in Utah

Roger Alford’s news brief on nuclear politics and past problems in Kentucky via Business Week

A discussion on the Flickr comment board of investor Steve Jurvetson, about Bill Gates’ TED talk on the Nuclear Future

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by EcoSalon columnist and tech editor Lora Kolodny.

Image: World Economic Forum

America runs on coal. It creates half of our electricity. And the unclean technology producing this source may be killing our children, grandchildren and the future unborn, not to mention our natural environment.

Is the fed sensing the urgency to limit the damage from this source we depend upon?

Not according to three environmental groups looking for clean coal technology. They are planning to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for being blatantly lax in limiting toxic discharges from power plants that threaten the health of local communities exposed daily to the pollutants.

According to Planet Shifter, the federal government is 26 years behind setting restrictions on the discharges which contaminate ground and surface waters and threaten aquatic life. Apparently, the EPA should have limited coal ash discharges to meet its own requirements for annual environmental reviews.

Back in December when a coal ash spill occurred at the Tennessee Kingston Fossil Plant, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised to issue regulations by the end of the year for nearly 600 coal plants with on-site coal ash storage ponds or landfills.

But the three groups planning to sue: the Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Integrity Project argue “the EPA need to stop kicking the can down the road and set a date for the regulation.”

There is evidence that these coal plants discharge millions of pounds of toxic pollutants every year. According to the report, in  Kingston, alone, more than 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash spilled from a coal-ash holding pond last December when a earthen wall ruptured. The ash contains elevated levels of arsenic, selenium and lead, among other toxic substances.

In a 60 Minutes investigation on harmful waste by-products from coal, it was revealed that the tremendous amount we burn for electricity every year generates 130 million tons of waste. They even interviewed coal barons who have become rich off coal, who admitted being responsible for those smoke stacks that pump out 100-million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

Most of the waste emitted from power stations  is coal ash which is dangerous to humans and other living things. Environmental scientists tell us that the concentrations of mercury, arsenic, lead and other toxic metals are considerably higher in coal ash than in ordinary soil.

When properly disposed of  in dry, lined impoundments, coal ash is considered to be safe. But observers say it is often dumped into wet ponds (nearly 500 of them in the U.S.)  and in those cases the ash could pose health risks to the nearby communities.

Images: Tennessee Valley Authority, Earth Observatory, NASA

These days, making your house energy efficient makes sense not only because it’s good for the environment, but also because it’s good for the household budget. But figuring  out what needs to be done, how to get it done, and working out the costs can be as daunting as trying to find your way out of a maze in the dark.

Luckily, the Sierra Club has taken the guesswork out of greening your home with their new interactive Green Home website. It’s the brainchild of Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director, who discovered when trying to green his own home that access, information, and assistance weren’t all that easy to find.

As a result, Pope and his colleagues at the Sierra Club created a user-friendly web site that provides all the facts at your fingertips. With more than 100 sustainability-related articles by prominent green journalists available to read, and contact details for thousands of  authentically green product providers and services, this site is seriously resource rich.

It’s no surprise that Australian singer Missy Higgins made Billboard Magazine’s 2008 list of “top ten green artists”. An outspoken advocate of living a greener life, her tours are known to be as carbon neutral as possible. Her concerts are powered by green power, recycling facilities are always available, and she travels by hybrid car or bio diesel bus wherever possible.

Missy’s also an enthusiastic supporter of the Sierra Club 2% Solution Campaign which advocates that if everyone reduces their carbon output by 2% a year, there would be a 80% of all carbon emissions by 2050.

Now a poster child (pdf) for the Sierra Club’s 2% Solution Campaign, Missy is encouraging her fans to join in and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And to help them get started, she provides a list of quick and simple ways to decrease your carbon output. Plus, if you sign the Missy Pledge, you can also get a free download of the unreleased version of her hit single “ËœWhere I Stood.’