It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that air pollution is a threat to public health. So why are the leaders of 17 states trying to rollback the EPA’s new greenhouse gas regulations?

You’d think everyone would agree that clean air is essential for a healthy, prosperous nation, but recent action by industry and GOP leaders proves otherwise. Industry groups and over a dozen Republican-led states are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to block the EPA’s newest round of greenhouse gas regulations–claiming that they represent a “brazen power grab” by the Obama administration.

The new greenhouse gas regulations were adopted during the Congressional gridlock of 2011. The new rules require new power plants, factories and other such stationary facilities to limit carbon emissions. According to a 2007 SCOTUS ruling, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are air pollutants, making them subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. According to the LA Times, the fossil fuel industry claims that “the law covered only air pollutants that make it hard to breath, such as smog, not those that act to trap solar energy in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change.” At the time, four Supreme Court justices agreed with this claim, which is why GOP leaders feel confident enough to resurrect the fight.

“Texas, Florida and 15 other Republican-led states joined with business and energy groups in accusing the president and his EPA of overstepping their authority. California, Illinois and 13 other Democratic-led states joined with environmentalists in supporting the EPA’s rules,” reports the LA Times.

The main complaint of these politicians and their industry supporters is that such regulations are bad for business. Namely, the coal-fired power plant business. Rather than protect the long-term health and welfare of the air we all breathe (yes, even Big Oil and Coal executives), these politicians would rather mortgage public health for a few more years of climate-changing energy extraction.

In the end, this issue comes down to two things: 1) the GOP and its friends in industry are upset that they EPA was able to circumvent the joke that is our Congress, and 2) they don’t want to change, especially if it means losing a single cent of their already massive profits.

That’s right, as always, it all comes down to money. As predicted, those in the fossil fuel industry are trying to frighten the public (and bully the EPA) by saying that compliance with the greenhouse gas regulations will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Environmentalists say this is a gross exaggeration.

“The Democratic-led states, in a brief filed with the court, pointed to the ‘recent practical experience’ in California and New York showing that switching to low carbon energy sources can produce ‘more efficient and less polluting industrial processes, delivered at a reasonable cost,'” reports the LA Times.

Ultimately, the decision will come down to a divided SCOTUS, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely holding the deciding vote. He was the difference maker when the court faced this issue in 2007, but since then has voiced concern about over-regulation by the administration.

What do you think? Are the new greenhouse gas emissions necessary to protect public health or evidence of a power-hungry President? Share your thoughts in a comment.

Related on Ecosalon:

How Many Trees Should You Plant To Offset Greenhouse Gases?

8 Tips for Reducing Your Carbon Footprint

The Dirt on Clean Coal: Looking Beyond The Alternative Fuel Hype

The post GOP Is Blocking Greenhouse Gas Regulations. Again. appeared first on EcoSalon.

We’re all eager to find a viable solution to reduce greenhouse emissions without ruining the economy, but coal probably ain’t it right now.

Clean coal is nothing but “a joke,” according to Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. And the reasons to believe him are compelling, turning ex-coal hopefuls like me against this apparent fraud in the alternative-fuel biz. And despite ample buzz surrounding the idea of clean coal as a pristine energy source, prominent nature defenders such as Greenpeace shun the pursuit of coal as an answer to our climate-change problem. Looking beyond the hype, it’s pretty easy to see why coal’s squeaky-clean image is only a facade.

Here’s the theory behind clean coal: Coal is the dirtiest form of energy that exists, but by limiting emissions you can reduce the pollution. To achieve this, you can “scrub” away noxious impurities like sulfur, which causes acid rain when burned, and then build plants that capture greenhouse gasses as the coal burns in order to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Another option is to avoid coal combustion altogether in favor of a gasification process that uses oxygen and steam, no burning required.

This all sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, environmental experts smell a wolf in sheep’s clothing. First of all, the technology for carbon capture and gasification simply isn’t there, despite billions of dollars worth of research. Brune notes that the capturing process we’re working on is too expensive, uses massive amounts of energy and requires the construction of new plants just to trap the emissions from existing ones—not exactly efficient. Plus, the very act of mining coal is highly destructive, often involving the removal of entire mountaintops. Not cool.

The truth is that coal has powerful lobbyists spending tens of millions of dollars to convince us and Congress that clean coal is the answer, says Greenpeace. Lobbyists run alluring ads on TV during prime viewing times, omitting the fact that coal burning produces mercury contamination in addition to air pollution, literally spewing carcinogens. Coal already produces about half of our electricity, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

The good news is that we don’t have to look far for better alternatives. Brune endorses natural gas as a “bridge fuel” until we find a better solution—which could even prove to be coal if we discover safe and effective extraction and burning options. As plentiful as natural gas is in the United States, this option makes sense until technology catches up with our needs.

Smaller-scale renewable options also work well for certain communities. The Natural Resources Defense Council pushes wind energy, solar energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and offshore tidal energy where they’re possible. Farmers can even produce energy using gases from animal waste—I assume they remove the smell.

With all the options out there, clean coal just doesn’t make sense right now. With luck, technology will find a way to make coal sustainable; but until that happens, we’re better off looking elsewhere to solve our energy needs.

image: gynti_46

The post The Dirt on Clean Coal: Looking Beyond the Alternative Fuel Hype appeared first on EcoSalon.

Compare and contrast Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s stances on climate change, coal, fracking, domestic oil drilling and clean energy.

Where do Barack Obama and Mitt Romney differ on energy issues including climate change, coal, domestic drilling and renewable energy technologies? The stances of both candidates stick largely to party lines. Romney has poked fun at Obama’s concern for the environment, and favors a free-for-all approach to domestic energy production that lifts federal regulations on fossil fuel industries.

President Obama stresses an “all-of-the-above” plan that reduces fossil fuels to just a few small parts of a comprehensive energy strategy, emphasizing the need for clean energy. But Obama’s own statements on climate change, domestic oil drilling and other energy issues haven’t always gone over well with environmentalists. Here’s a rundown of each candidate’s viewpoints.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The candidates’ positions on climate change have everything to do with the way they see energy policy, and how the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment will shape the solutions they support. Unfortunately, climate change is far less of a focus in the lead-up to the 2012 election than it was in 2008, when then-candidate Obama frequently cited the reduction of greenhouse gases as one of his biggest goals as President. The issue only just came up again during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. But there are definite discrepancies between each candidate’s viewpoints.

Romney

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans, and to heal the planet. My promise… is to help you and your family.” – Mitt Romney, August 30th, 2012, Republican National Convention

Romney has gone back and forth on the issue of climate change, just in the space of the past year. In June 2011, he said “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe that the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that… And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

But by October 2011, he had changed his tune. “My view is we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Romney’s official website doesn’t mention climate change at all.

Obama

“And, yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. more droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future. And in this election you can do something about it.” – President Obama, September 6th, 2012, Democratic National Convention

At the official White House website, President Obama has laid out a series of steps that his administration has taken to reduce the emissions that lead to climate change, including international leadership, clean energy, monitoring emissions, adapting to the inevitable effects that we’re already beginning to experience and supporting climate change science and education.

However, the terms “climate change” and “global warming” don’t appear on his candidate website, BarackObama.com.

COAL

Both candidates support coal power to varying degrees, and both have softened previous statements against the polluting effects of coal mining and coal-fired power plants in apparent election-year ploys to avoid alienating residents of coal country states like West Virginia.

Romney

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney once stood beside a coal-fired power plant in Salem and said “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant, that plant kills people.” But his views have changed considerably since 2003. Romney wants to revise the Clean Air Act to eliminate greenhouse gas restrictions, giving coal power plants the ability to play an even larger role in America’s energy production.

Romney’s energy plan sets a goal for America to be energy-independent by 2020 – through increased extraction and use of domestic oil, gas and coal.

Obama

Since 2008, Obama has pledged support for the spurious concept of “clean coal,” and seems to be treading lightly on the issue in 2012. But rather than pushing coal as the main source of domestic energy, President Obama includes as just one of a range of energy technologies that can power America. His administration pushed for cap and trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, but after the legislation failed in the Senate it settled for allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact regulatory measures instead.

Along with pushing “clean coal,” Obama has invested in carbon capture and sequestration through the Recovery Act, and has implemented initiatives to improve miner health and safety.

DOMESTIC DRILLING AND FRACKING

Here we are four years after the last Presidential election, and cringe-worthy echoes of “Drill, Baby, Drill” still ring through our ears. While the Republican candidates, both in 2008 and 2012, favor a frenzy of domestic drilling, President Obama has been slightly more cautious, considering the environmental impact of each project.

Romney

“In the midst of the energy revolution taking place on state and privately-held lands across America, oil and gas production on federal lands somehow plummeted last year. This was no accident. President Obama intentionally sought to shut down oil, gas and coal production in pursuit of his own alternative energy agenda.” – Mitt Romney’s Energy Policy White Paper, 2012

Romney’s energy plan calls for giving states the right to oversee the production and development of all forms of energy within their own borders, pointing out that “At least sixty-two percent of known oil resources on federal lands are off-limits.” Those federal lands include environmentally sensitive, protected wildlife areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Romney wants to establish a new five year offshore leasing plan that “aggressively opens new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina.” He would also approve the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil into the U.S. market.

Romney also wants to lift back federal regulations for hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” the process by which natural gas is extracted from the earth.

Obama

“We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.” – President Obama, September 6th, 2012, Democratic National Convention

Domestic oil drilling has actually increased on President Obama’s watch, but he stresses that drilling should only be a small part of America’s energy strategy, saying “we’ll do it while protecting the health and safety of the American people.” The Obama administration stepped back on a plan to open more of the coastline to oil drilling after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, but in his State of the Union address in January 2012, Obama said he aims to go ahead with those plans.

President Obama approved the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline in March 2012 after previously declining to approve the permit for the northern portion, saying Congress hadn’t given him enough time to review the environmental impact.

While Obama pledges to take every step to develop domestic natural gas resources, he has stressed the importance of safety regulations. In his 2012 State of the Union address, the President said “I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The words energy innovation mean very different things to the two Presidential candidates. Mitt Romney’s energy policy refers to “the revolution in U.S. energy production,” but he’s talking about a surge in oil and natural gas drilling, not alternative energy. On the other hand, President Obama supports a broad range of clean energy technologies, considering them to be a crucial part of America’s energy future.

Romney

“In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed… as president, I will unleash American innovation and productivity to make full use of our natural resources.” – Mitt Romney, March 5th 2012

Five years ago, Romney was singing a different tune. While the candidate supported domestic oil drilling and coal, he also called for the use of alternative sources of energy including biodiesel, ethanol, wind power and solar power. But Romney’s current energy platform barely mentions renewable energy at all, except to disparage President Obama’s efforts to bolster these industries.

Mitt Romney’s official website reads, “As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of ‘green’ jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation. The ‘green’ technologies are typically far too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and studies have shown that for every ‘green’ job created there are actually more jobs destroyed. Unsurprisingly, this costly government investment has failed to create an economic boom.”

Obama

“We can’t have an energy policy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” – President Obama, March 15th 2012

The Obama administration’s investment in clean energy is the largest in American history, nearly doubling the generation of technologies like solar, wind and geothermal power production. America’s first-ever offshore wind farm is expected to produce enough clean energy to power more than 200,000 homes. The administration has also approved the construction of 16 commercial-scale solar facilities, five wind and eight geothermal projects on public lands. Together, these projects are expected to power about 1.3 million homes and support 12,500 jobs.

President Obama also supports a Clean Energy Standard that would double the share of electricity from clean energy sources to 80 percent by 2035.

Image: 1 + 2

The post A Guide to the Presidential Candidates’ Energy Policies appeared first on EcoSalon.

QuoteDaily quotes at EcoSalon.

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” – Thomas Edison

Image: jurvetson

The post Ra Ra appeared first on EcoSalon.

There is an unspeakable tragedy going on in Japan right now. It will continue to unfold before our eyes in the days, weeks, months, years, and even decades ahead. It will reach the coast of America. This may sound alarmist, but it isn’t. As the New York Times reported this morning:

“The fast-moving developments at the Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) plant, 150 miles north of Tokyo, catapulted the 4-day-old nuclear crisis to an entirely new level, threatening to overshadow even the massive damage and loss of life spawned by a devastating earthquake and tsunami.”

Now nor ever is the right time for panic. The multiple stricken reactors might not melt down. But that doesn’t mean that they won’t continue to emit health-threatening levels of radiation. If the wind shifts, and that radiation heads inland, people will be migrating from their homes, villages, maybe even cities. To where?

What are we to do? What can we do?

First, of course, we have to do whatever we can to help Japan. It’s the third richest economy in the world, but every dollar, every package, every plane or ship that lands with relief supplies will be welcome, not just for the physical support, but for the moral support. If they want to send over exchange students, we should take them. If Japanese businesses need help, their competitors here in the United States should help. If you’re a person of faith, pray.

And here in America? The current nuclear disaster is in Japan, but we have our own problems. Would you light a lump of coal and put it on your kitchen table while your family was in the house? Why is there more air pollution in the Powder River Basin of Idaho than there is in Los Angeles? What are we going to do if hydraulic fracking many hundreds of feet underground releases gas and toxic chemicals that contaminate one of our rivers?

Coal and natural gas are no healthier than nuclear power. At the end of the day, across the planet and across what will be the couple centuries of world history of burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for power, fossil fuels will end up impacting far more people than nuclear power.

America needs to do what it has always, until recently, done best – lead. We need to get out of the dirty, dangerous, unhealthy fuels of the past and lead the way into a clean, healthy and prosperous new energy future. We need to support the people, the politicians, the companies and the organizations that are trying to get us there.

Image: Hogeasdf

The post Don’t Worry, It’s Safe appeared first on EcoSalon.

1. Highways

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

When gas prices rose dramatically in 2008, Americans began flocking to mass transit in droves, resulting in declining revenues for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Naturally, the Bush Administration’s response was to take money from already underfunded mass transit and use it to pay for highways that are already, as Slate put it, “paved with gold”. Billions of dollars are pumped into the highway system every year, which encourages the polluting car culture and leads to further sprawl, while mass transit continues to fall by the wayside.

2. SUVs

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

In case you aren’t already taking optimal advantage of the polluting power of our nation’s sprawling web of highways, the government would like to make your impact even greater by setting you up in a nice gas-guzzling subsidized SUV. A portion of the tax code revised in 2003 gives business owners a huge deduction for up to 30% of a large vehicle’s cost, which can add up to $25,000 in the case of a Hummer – far more than the credit given to individual purchasers of energy-efficient vehicles. Attempts to axe this provision in 2007 failed.

You only get the credit if it seats more than 9 passengers or weighs more than 14,000 pounds, but they don’t really care whether your business actually requires such a vehicle. So, by all means, get the Escalade.

3. Paper Mills

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

Paper mills cut down trees while sucking up massive amounts of fossil fuels and get big money from the government to do it – all through a loophole in a law that was supposed to benefit renewable energy. A law enacted in 2005 contains a section that gives businesses an incentive to mix alternative energy sources with fossil fuels. To qualify for the tax credit, paper companies started adding diesel fuel to “black liquor”, a pulp-making byproduct that they were already using to generate electricity on its own.

But time might be running out for this egregious misuse of taxpayer money: the unemployment extension bill approved by the Senate and on its way to the House would eliminate this loophole and use the funds for health care. (Editor’s note: We’ve contacted both the editor and writer of this story at BusinessWeek to confirm that this loophole will still be closed in the bill just passed by the Senate, and will update if more information becomes available. In the meantime, there’s this resource which seems to confirm the loophole is in fact being closed.)

4. Commercial Fishing

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

About half of the $713 million in subsidies given to the U.S. fishing industry directly contributes to overfishing, according to a new study by the Environmental Working Group. The subsidies – which equal about a fifth of the value of the catch itself – lower overhead costs and promote increased fishing capacity, meaning more fish are caught than can be naturally replaced.

Overfishing is a huge environmental problem – up to 25% of the world’s fishery stocks are overexploited or depleted, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.  But that’s not the only result of the subsidies; because roughly half of the money goes toward fuel costs, other consequences include wasteful fuel consumption as well as air and water pollution.

5. Nuclear Power

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

The nuclear industry’s decade-long, $600 million lobbying effort finally paid off as President Obama agreed to grant loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.  Obama has been promising since the early days of his campaign that he would find a way to “safely harness nuclear power”, but the $55 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are going forward despite continued reservations about uranium mining and the storage of radioactive waste.

6. Factory Farming

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

American factory farms are literally filthy cesspools of their own making, and who else is cleaning up all that shit but American taxpayers? Giant factory farms make up just 2% of the livestock farms in the U.S. yet raise 40% of all animals in the U.S., and they do it using practices that are not only harmful to workers and the animals themselves, but to the environment.

The government heavily subsidizes factory farms so they can provide über-cheap meat and dairy, raising as many animals as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of care. And why should they care about finding better ways to manage manure when the government hands them $125 million annually to “deal” with the consequences, and then doesn’t bother to check up on them?

Despite the backwards funding given to clean them up, gaping lagoons of livestock waste packed with pollutants continue to be one of the biggest environmental problems in America, fouling our water and causing those depressing dead zones in our oceans.

7.  Corn Ethanol

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

In the quest to beat back fossil fuels, cleaner fuels that we can grow seemed like a good idea – until we realized that some, like corn, make a huge dent in the world’s food supply. But that isn’t stopping the U.S. government from giving billions in subsidies to the corn industry in general, and corn ethanol in particular.

Corn-based ethanol gobbled up 76% of federal government renewable energy subsidies in 2007, leaving little for more environmentally sound renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Worse yet, it’s a huge drain on water resources, gulping down up to 2,138 liters of water per liter of ethanol.

This isn’t just an unwise investment – it’s also destroying the rainforest. As American farmers have abandoned soy for subsidized corn, soy prices have risen worldwide – and led to an increase in Amazon deforestation. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer of soy next to the U.S., and growing demand has meant more clear-cutting for soy plantations.

8. Processed Foods

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

Ethanol isn’t the only product that comes to us courtesy of U.S. corn subsidies. There’s also plenty of craptastic processed “food” products packed with multiple subsidized ingredients: wheat, sugar, soy and of course, corn. Gee, could the obesity epidemic have anything to do with the fact that our government makes junk food cheap, and encourages its consumption through the food stamp program?

It’s a sad state of affairs when a Twinkie costs less, calorically speaking, than a carrot. Meanwhile, farmers who produce fruits and vegetables (aside from corn), don’t get a dime in government subsidies. While the government is considering junk food taxes, a change to the Farm Bill might be more efficient.

9. Coal

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

You would think that the coal industry’s long-held dominance of the American energy market would have eliminated the need for subsidies. After all, the industry spent $47 million last year on PR alone. But the fact is, coal companies are milking the government for all it’s worth while continuing to pump greenhouse gases and carcinogens into the air and turn the Appalachian Mountains into post-apocalyptic hellholes.

Coal subsidies have survived this long because of the industry’s staggering influence on lawmakers, and because constituents in coal states often fear the economic repercussions of a scaled-back coal industry more than they fear the harm to their health and homes. And on top of the federal coal subsidies lumped in under “˜fossil fuels’, the industry gets untold breaks on a state and local level in places like Kentucky, where the coal industry netted $115 million in subsidies in 2006.

10. Oil

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

Climate change: brought to you by the U.S. government! According to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuels received over $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while traditional sources of renewable energy were given just $12.2 billion.

But the oil industry won’t even admit that the direct spending and tax breaks they get are subsidies – they prefer to call them “incentives”, and claim that attempts to roll back some of those subsidies are actually “new taxes”.

As Grist notes, the ELI report is actually pretty conservative – it didn’t include things like military spending to defend oil in the Middle East or infrastructure spending. But the fossil fuel industry’s free ride is almost over: President Obama’s new federal budget proposal wipes out these breaks and increases funding for clean energy research (and, unfortunately, nuclear power).

Photo credits: The following photos are from Flickr and licensed for commercial use under Creative Commons: “Freeway” by Payton Chung; “SUV” by The Car Spy; “Paper mill in Washington State” by Jan Tik; “Fish face” by Andy Welsh; “Nuclear reactor” by Intamin10; “Factory farm protest sign” by johnnyalive; “Corn” by normanack;  “Coal” by Duncan Harris; “Oil rig” by kenhodge13.

The post The 10 Least Green Government Subsidies appeared first on EcoSalon.

Urban sprawl, pollution, over-consumption, deforestation…like it or not, U.S. taxpayers are still paying for all of these things to occur in America and beyond. Despite recent investments in green jobs and technology, an array of government subsidies pay big dirty industries like oil, coal and factory farms to destroy the environment in every way possible while greener, healthier industries like solar power and vegetable farms get a pittance.

10. Highways

When gas prices rose dramatically in 2008, Americans began flocking to mass transit in droves, resulting in declining revenues for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Naturally, the Bush Administration’s response was to take money from already underfunded mass transit and use it to pay for highways that are already, as Slate put it, “paved with gold”. Billions of dollars are pumped into the highway system every year, which encourages the polluting car culture and leads to further sprawl, while mass transit continues to fall by the wayside.

9. SUVs

In case you aren’t already taking optimal advantage of the polluting power of our nation’s sprawling web of highways, the government would like to make your impact even greater by setting you up in a nice gas-guzzling subsidized SUV. A portion of the tax code revised in 2003 gives business owners a huge deduction for up to 30% of a large vehicle’s cost, which can add up to $25,000 in the case of a Hummer – far more than the credit given to individual purchasers of energy-efficient vehicles. Attempts to axe this provision in 2007 failed.

You only get the credit if it seats more than 9 passengers or weighs more than 14,000 pounds, but they don’t really care whether your business actually requires such a vehicle. So, by all means, get the Escalade.

8. Paper Mills

Paper mills cut down trees while sucking up massive amounts of fossil fuels and get big money from the government to do it – all through a loophole in a law that was supposed to benefit renewable energy. A law enacted in 2005 contains a section that gives businesses an incentive to mix alternative energy sources with fossil fuels. To qualify for the tax credit, paper companies started adding diesel fuel to “black liquor”, a pulp-making byproduct that they were already using to generate electricity on its own.

But time might be running out for this egregious misuse of taxpayer money: the unemployment extension bill approved by the Senate and on its way to the House would eliminate this loophole and use the funds for health care. (Editor’s note: We’ve contacted both the editor and writer of this story at BusinessWeek to confirm that this loophole will still be closed in the bill just passed by the Senate, and will update if more information becomes available. In the meantime, there’s this resource which seems to confirm the loophole is in fact being closed.)

7. Commercial Fishing

About half of the $713 million in subsidies given to the U.S. fishing industry directly contributes to overfishing, according to a new study by the Environmental Working Group. The subsidies – which equal about a fifth of the value of the catch itself – lower overhead costs and promote increased fishing capacity, meaning more fish are caught than can be naturally replaced.

Overfishing is a huge environmental problem – up to 25% of the world’s fishery stocks are overexploited or depleted, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.  But that’s not the only result of the subsidies; because roughly half of the money goes toward fuel costs, other consequences include wasteful fuel consumption as well as air and water pollution.

6. Nuclear Power

The nuclear industry’s decade-long, $600 million lobbying effort finally paid off as President Obama agreed to grant loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.  Obama has been promising since the early days of his campaign that he would find a way to “safely harness nuclear power”, but the $55 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are going forward despite continued reservations about uranium mining and the storage of radioactive waste.

5. Factory Farming

American factory farms are literally filthy cesspools of their own making, and who else is cleaning up all that shit but American taxpayers? Giant factory farms make up just 2% of the livestock farms in the U.S. yet raise 40% of all animals in the U.S., and they do it using practices that are not only harmful to workers and the animals themselves, but to the environment.

The government heavily subsidizes factory farms so they can provide über-cheap meat and dairy, raising as many animals as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of care. And why should they care about finding better ways to manage manure when the government hands them $125 million annually to “deal” with the consequences, and then doesn’t bother to check up on them?

Despite the backwards funding given to clean them up, gaping lagoons of livestock waste packed with pollutants continue to be one of the biggest environmental problems in America, fouling our water and causing those depressing dead zones in our oceans.

4.  Corn Ethanol

In the quest to beat back fossil fuels, cleaner fuels that we can grow seemed like a good idea – until we realized that some, like corn, make a huge dent in the world’s food supply. But that isn’t stopping the U.S. government from giving billions in subsidies to the corn industry in general, and corn ethanol in particular.

Corn-based ethanol gobbled up 76% of federal government renewable energy subsidies in 2007, leaving little for more environmentally sound renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Worse yet, it’s a huge drain on water resources, gulping down up to 2,138 liters of water per liter of ethanol.

This isn’t just an unwise investment – it’s also destroying the rainforest. As American farmers have abandoned soy for subsidized corn, soy prices have risen worldwide – and led to an increase in Amazon deforestation. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer of soy next to the U.S., and growing demand has meant more clear-cutting for soy plantations.

3. Processed Foods

Ethanol isn’t the only product that comes to us courtesy of U.S. corn subsidies. There’s also plenty of craptastic processed “food” products packed with multiple subsidized ingredients: wheat, sugar, soy and of course, corn. Gee, could the obesity epidemic have anything to do with the fact that our government makes junk food cheap, and encourages its consumption through the food stamp program?

It’s a sad state of affairs when a Twinkie costs less, calorically speaking, than a carrot. Meanwhile, farmers who produce fruits and vegetables (aside from corn), don’t get a dime in government subsidies. While the government is considering junk food taxes, a change to the Farm Bill might be more efficient.

2. Coal

You would think that the coal industry’s long-held dominance of the American energy market would have eliminated the need for subsidies. After all, the industry spent $47 million last year on PR alone. But the fact is, coal companies are milking the government for all it’s worth while continuing to pump greenhouse gases and carcinogens into the air and turn the Appalachian Mountains into post-apocalyptic hellholes.

Coal subsidies have survived this long because of the industry’s staggering influence on lawmakers, and because constituents in coal states often fear the economic repercussions of a scaled-back coal industry more than they fear the harm to their health and homes. And on top of the federal coal subsidies lumped in under “˜fossil fuels’, the industry gets untold breaks on a state and local level in places like Kentucky, where the coal industry netted $115 million in subsidies in 2006.

1. Oil

Climate change: brought to you by the U.S. government! According to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuels received over $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while traditional sources of renewable energy were given just $12.2 billion.

But the oil industry won’t even admit that the direct spending and tax breaks they get are subsidies – they prefer to call them “incentives”, and claim that attempts to roll back some of those subsidies are actually “new taxes”.

As Grist notes, the ELI report is actually pretty conservative – it didn’t include things like military spending to defend oil in the Middle East or infrastructure spending. But the fossil fuel industry’s free ride is almost over: President Obama’s new federal budget proposal wipes out these breaks and increases funding for clean energy research (and, unfortunately, nuclear power).

Photo credits: The following photos are from Flickr and licensed for commercial use under Creative Commons: “Freeway” by Payton Chung; “SUV” by The Car Spy; “Paper mill in Washington State” by Jan Tik; “Fish face” by Andy Welsh; “Nuclear reactor” by Intamin10; “Factory farm protest sign” by johnnyalive; “Corn” by normanack;  “Coal” by Duncan Harris; “Oil rig” by kenhodge13.

The post The 10 Least Green Government Subsidies appeared first on EcoSalon.

If you thought “Titantic” was a compelling disaster film, try wrapping your brain around the submersion of an entire nation – one of the most breathtaking and remote places on earth. This is the story currently being shot by award-winning documentary filmmaker Jon Shenk. He is trailing President Mohamed Nasheed to deliver this essential an message about how climate change can literally engulf us.

“If we get inundated with water from the effects of too much carbon in the atmosphere, then this planet is going to be a very unpleasant place to be,” says Shenk, who adds that the Maldives struggle packs a human message. “Hundreds of millions of refugees, famine – the U.S. and Europe will not be immune from this. Much of Florida will be underwater. So, I hope this film ends up being a story about people who are doing what they can to help the world.”

Shenk’s company, ActualFilms, has spent the past year interviewing the president who has been shopping for a new country to house the current inhabitants of nearly 1,200 islands and atolls in the Indian Ocean. Global warming causes the polar ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise, and the Maldives is only eight feet above sea level at its highest point. Nasheed isn’t waiting around to sink or swim, and his plight promises to be a fascinating one to observe on the screen.

“I’m not interested in scaring people or overwhelming viewers with science and other information, but I hope people watch the film and see a group of people who are frightened about their future and who are using whatever tools they have at their disposal to prepare themselves,” says Shenk. “Nasheed and Maldivians are an example of people whose nation, way of life, and identity will very likely be erased by climate change.”

Slated for release in May 2010, Dirty Business uncovers the true social and environmental costs of coal power, following visionaries leading the path to an alternative energy future. The series of stories are shot in China, Saskatchewan, Kansas, West Virgina, Nevada and New York, with Rolling Stone reporter Jeff Goodell examining the pitfalls of a continued dependency on 19th century technology linked as the largest single source of greenhouse gases. Along with the families battling the devastation on the front lines, the documentary features industry reps, political leaders, civil servants and environmental experts – all trying to piece the conflict together.

Split Estate warns, “What you don’t know CAN hurt you” and maps a tragedy in the making as citizens in the path of a new drilling boom in the Rocky Mountain West, deal with their rural homes being threatened by polluted waters left unprotected by the oil and gas industry. The citizens frustrated by the erosion of their civil liberties, communities and health, share their struggle of clashing with interest of an industry that assures residents it is a “good neighbor.” In additional to meeting victims like Laura Amos (the proverbial canary in the coalmine) the documentary features civil servants, industry reps, political leaders and environmental activists, all trying to piece together the difficult conflict of energy versus humanity.

Garbage Dreams, which first aired the end of April, is a coming of age tale of three teenage boys in the world’s largest garbage village of Mokkatam on the outskirts of Cairo – home to 60,000 Zaballeen (Arabic for garbage people). They survive by recycling 80 percent of their trash, and when faced with the threat of the globalization of their trade by disposal companies, the villagers must make hard choices about how to sustain their community. The trailer shows the enormous burden the teenagers “endure” while combing for waste amid crowded rooftops where as geese, chickens and goats grazed on remnants of waste.

As Dreams director Mai Iskander so eloquently describes the children at work: “I filmed them day after day, scavenging for tiny bits of cardboard and plastic, the hard, dangerous and dreary work of carrying and sorting garbage with their bare hands, breathing in the dust of the plastic granulators and fabric grinders, making a tiny living from tiny bits of trash.” Iskander says he hopes the world will realize that it is these dreamers who will become world leaders as they save the Earth while lifting themselves out of poverty. The film has scored 21 awards including Al Gore Reel Current and Humanitas winner of the IDA (International Documentary Association).

“Why didn’t we save ourselves when we had the chance?” Is the haunting question aptly posed in the film, The Age of Stupid, which started out as a documentary but was morphed into a futuristic drama following seven characters and narrated by  Pete Postlethwaite. The award-winning actor plays a shell-shocked lone survivor in the devastated future world of 2055 – reflecting on footage from 2008 and questioning why we sat back instead of moving on climate change.

A co-production between Franny Armstrong, first-time producer Lizzie Gillett and John Battsek’s company, Passion Pictures, was first released in 2009 to rave reviews. The New York Times wrote: “The film is a scorching appeal for humans to avoid knowingly up-ending the earth’s climate, delivered form the vantage point of 2055, when the giant London Eye Ferris wheel looks more like a waterwheel,with its bottom immersed in the Thames, along with much of central London.”

Unlike other green docs in recent years, Stupid uses dramatization to heighten emotions in prompting us to take action while we can. Filmmakers like Shenk believe that going this extra mile works better in getting people – especially Americans consumed with jobs and kids and busy lives – to care about the cause.

“I think if people saw this has a human problem they would be more likely to prioritize the issue,” Shenk finds. “I think much of the written material and documentaries about climate have focused on the facts – and the message communicated is not quite working. Movies can be great for moving hearts. Once you have the heart, the mind follows.”

To learn more about where to view these films and how to host community screenings and events, visit Working Films.

Images: Chi King, Mnn, Age of Stupid, Dirty Business, Split Estate, Haumaldives

The post New Documentaries Shed Light on Global Environmental Crises appeared first on EcoSalon.

Climate change is nonsense.

If I’m ever lucky enough to bump into millionaire Donald Trump (say at a real estate sale or divorce court), I will rush up to the man and shake his hand. He’s opened my eyes to this global warming hoax once and for all. Addressing an audience of 500 admirers at the Trump National Golf Club (Westchester, N.Y.), he uttered these immortal words:

With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore…Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.

I bet those countries aren’t laughing now!

But if there’s one person who does look stupid, it’s me. All these years believing in the power of science, logic, reasoned argument and differentiating between weather and climate, and now the Donald’s blown that baloney into the weeds. But I can take it – after all, I’d rather get my story correct than support some thoughtless populist prejudice designed to further the political agendas of self-serving elites. Don, you’re the man.

But I want more from our Gore-slaying guru of truthiness. I want him to explain the specifics. What say you to these thorny issues, Mr. Trump?

1. Increasingly extreme weather. Any fool can see that the earth can’t be warming up if it’s snowing! So what is causing all this weird weather right now? There’s only one rational conclusion: the earth must be cooling down. (I’m blaming all these wind turbines, it’s like global air-con).

2. Crops are on the run. Guatemalan coffee growers are moving their plantations, claiming that climbing temperatures are putting their livelihoods at risk. Scottish soft fruit is in danger of getting squished. Indian farmers are insuring themselves against crop failure. To them all I say – what’s wrong with tinned food? This loose food fad has to stop sometime, might as well be now. (And don’t get me started on that organic rubbish).

3. The mountains are thawing. The glaciers are melting on Everest and the Himalayan snows are turning into lakes. What’s that about, Don? No, I’ve got it – summer’s coming! Of course. These things are so obvious if you spend the time to really think them through.

4. The seas are rising. The island chain of the Maldives is sliding beneath the waves, and its inhabitants are responding with heavy investment in a zero-carbon economy. Heavy. See what I’m saying? The heavier it is, the less it floats. (Pro tip, guys: use coal, it gets lighter the more you use it).

5. The ice-caps are melting. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up (here’s the latest from the US Geological Survey), making the oceans rise twice as fast as they were doing in the 1970s. The summer polar ice cap is 20% reduced from its 1979 coverage. Where’s it all going? It’s this snow we’re having! Gotcha. The ice isn’t melting, it’s just moving around! Give it a few years and it’ll be right back at the poles again, you’ll see.

Am I on the right track, Don?

Image: Trump Ice Skating Rink in Central Park, New York, by James Trosh

The post Donald Trump Sets the World Straight appeared first on EcoSalon.

Facebook is the second largest website in the US and the default social network of many environmental activists, where they (ok, we) go to develop supportive networks, raise awareness and funds for good causes. It’s also a platform for some excellent, environmental-fundraising games like Lil’ Green Patch (acquired by social games company Playdom in 2009) and Sea Garden (a MobScience game).

Obviously the environmental community, on and off Facebook, felt betrayed when the social media leader, in late January, announced its plans to build a data center in Prineville, Oregon that will be contrarily LEED-gold certified, yet run on coal power.

Yes, coal – that’s lump in your stocking, fine particles in the air and lungs, carbon dioxide-emitting coal.

Facebook’s data center electricity provider in Oregon will be PacifiCorp., a utility that is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and generates most of its power from coal according to reports by SearchDataCenter.

The information and communications technology sector, according to Gartner research, is already as bad as and quickly surpassing the aviation industry in terms of global CO2 emissions. Why would Facebook – which has enjoyed a reputation as a game changer, and innovator – make the ICT sector worse, by going with the fuel that the Natural Resources Defense Council identifies as a top source of mercury pollution in the U.S., and a health threat to all who live near coal power plants?

End users do like free, or ad-sponsored Facebook. And coal power remains cheaper than cleaner alternatives like natural gas, or hydroelectric power (which has its own problems including damaging fish populations and rivers). But Facebook has said in a series of interviews that it focused on building an efficient data center, rather than the source of power it will use. We’re surprised an industry leader thought one good thing was good enough.

Is it unreasonable to ask Facebook to offer its services free to end users, but to buy more expensive, green power? Or, given their lack of environmental responsibility on this one, would you be willing to abandon your Facebook profile entirely?

Basic Reading:

“Criticism from Greenpeace and Change.org has attracted national attention within the information technology industry, catching Facebook off guard. ‘This has been a big learning experience for us,’ said Facebook spokeswoman Kathleen Loughlin. ‘We’re six years old. We’ve never owned a data center before. We’ve never owned land before…The energy source is one factor,’ Loughlin said, ‘but how we’re going to use that energy is another equally important, if not more important, factor to consider.'” A news feature by Mike Rogoway for The Oregonian

“After having rented out data center space in Silicon Valley and elsewhere for years, Facebook is now building its own data center in scenic Prineville, located in central Oregon. It’s a symbolic step for the company, which started out on an $80/month shared server just under six years ago.” – An InsideFacebook article detailing some of the efficient features planned for the company’s new data center

“For the first time Facebook will have its own facility but unlike Google or Microsoft, which both built data centers in the same area running off hydroelectric power, Facebook’s facility will be powered by dirty coal…” – An anti-coal petition from Change.org to Facebook’s CEO, with about 8,000 signatures as of Feb. 25, 2010

“The only truly green data centers are the ones running on renewable energy…Given the massive amounts of electricity that even energy-efficient data centers consume to run computers, backup power units, and power related cooling equipment, the last thing we need to be doing is building them in places where they are increasing demand for dirty coal-fired power.” – GreenPeace press officer Daniel Kessler via a HuffingtonPost op-ed

Further Resources:

“Coal accounts for a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” reported in the New York Times‘ Green Inc. blog

A story on the waste problems created by coal power plants in B’More Green

A round-up of some of the green IT practices and technologies used by tech giants including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook from Earth2Tech

Ironically, last April, Intel called for users to submit ideas via Facebook video submission about How to Green Data Centers, via Treehugger

A “clean coal” debunking site ThisIsReality.org that includes a public service announcement ad created by the Coen brothers

Image: Nick Perla

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

The post EcoMeme: Facebook Under Fire for Coal Powered Data Center appeared first on EcoSalon.