Apparently everything really is bigger in Texas, even the hypocrites: The head of the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S. is suing to keep hydraulic fracturing (fracking) out of his own backyard.

When we imagine anti-hydraulic fracturing activists, a well-suited executive from the fossil fuel industry almost never enters the picture. That’s why many are reeling after the Wall Street Journal broke the news that Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, had joined his neighbors in a lawsuit designed to halt nearby hydraulic fracturing operations.

Before we get all excited and start pointing fingers, it’s important to examine the details. Tillerson’s move isn’t motivated by fears of what hydraulic fracturing will do to the air, water, and soil, as some reports have implied. It’s aimed instead at blocking construction of a water tower that’s necessary for fracking operations to continue (hydraulic fracturing requires a huge amount of water). Viewed in this light, Tillerson’s move is more of a strange showing of solidarity between residents of what I can only imagine is a very well-manicured neighborhood in Bartonville, Texas.

As the Wall Street Journal reports: “[Tillerson] and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create ‘a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,’ in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing.”

“Tillerson’s attorney told the Journal he had no concerns about fracking-related traffic and rather was simply opposed to a water tower hovering over the 83-acre horse ranch he and wife Renda, a former competitive barrel jumper, share,” explains The Dallas Morning News.

So, a rich guy is more concerned about preserving his view than protecting his water supply–so what? Well for one thing it’s a direct contradiction of rhetoric the fossil fuel industry has forced down the throat of communities from Pennsylvania to California: hydraulic fracturing is harmless, non-disruptive and healthy for everyone.

Unless you’re a wealthy oil baron with lots of clout in your small Texas town. Then it becomes unsightly, a nuisance, and a threat to property values. Whether or not Tillerson says it out loud or not, at the very least hydraulic fracturing disturbs the peace–of the environment, wildlife, and anyone else who happens to be living nearby. No one should be forced to acquiesce these things to the fossil fuel industry just because there’s profit to be made. Whether you’re a stay-at-home-mom or the CEO of ExxonMobil.

Related on Ecosalon

Knocking The Wind Out of T. Boone Pickens

3 Trendy Brands Embracing Clean Energy in a Big Way

China’s Synthetic Natural Gas: Is It Really Clean Energy?

Images: Wikimedia Commons, rifuture

The post Exxon CEO Joins Hydraulic Fracturing Lawsuit, But Not Why You Think appeared first on EcoSalon.

The good, the bad, and the ugly. We take a look at how Obama spoke about the environment in the most recent State of the Union address.

It’s hard for me to watch the State of the Union address each year. On one hand, I feel like it’s a civic duty, to stay apprised of the plans elected leaders have for our country. On the other, I’m almost nauseated by the amount of “PR speak” and self-serving camera work. I’ve come to realize that while I want to take the State of the Union seriously, we have no guarantees that any part of this well-written speech will actually come to pass. Considering what was said in the 2014 State of the Union, that could be a blessing in disguise.

First, the good stuff. During the speech, President Obama reiterated what was made plain during the launch of his Climate Action Plan in June: “The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” Obama said. Those five words mark a turning point in our national discussion about the extreme weather and other changes that have been repeatedly linked to human carbon emissions and particulate pollution. Obama’s statement sends the message that America is finally ready to discuss not if but WHY climate change is accelerating, and what we can do about it.

The President also scored points with environmentalists by mentioning the need to reduce subsidies for the oil and gas industries, increased investment in solar energy, set new fuel efficiency standards for trucks, and limits on carbon pollution from power plants. Encouraging words, but still just words.

Then, Obama’s State of the Union took a decidedly un-environmental turn. Despite clear scientific evidence that the fracking boom threatens the health of thousands of Americans, putting our soil and drinking water in jeopardy, the President touted the role of natural gas as a job creator. He even proposed that we further prop up this industry by modifying the country’s fleet of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to run on natural gas.

“The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades,” he said.

Sorry, Mr. President, we’re not buying it. A few weeks ago, four states confirmed that natural gas fracking operations have directly contributed to water pollution in their communities. Just days ago The Rachel Maddow Show reported on a Texas town that’s begging the state to shut down fracking operations that have triggered multiple, devastating earthquakes.

And conveniently absent from the State of the Union address? Any mention of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline–a project Obama has admitted should be rejected if there’s any evidence the project would contribute to air pollution and climate change (which, you know, there is).

So while the State of the Union held many hopeful spots, let’s not forget the contradictions. And as always, that actions speak louder than words.

Related on EcoSalon

Top Environmental News Stories That Ended Well in 2013

Drowning Islands: A Visual Account of the Effects of Climate Change

9 Clean Energy Infographics That Prove Solar and Wind are the Future

Image: Whitehouse.gov

The post Obama’s State of the Union: Climate Change and Contradictions appeared first on EcoSalon.

China is doubling-down on synthetic natural gas in hopes of reducing air pollution. But is this new natural gas any cleaner?

A study published in Nature last month investigated the finer details of China’s recent approval of nine synthetic natural gas power plants (with plans to build 4o more).

As you may know, China is facing an extreme air pollution problem. Government officials say the large-scale synthetic natural gas plants will curb the countries air pollution issues, but the claim is under scrutiny by the scientific community.

To create synthetic natural gas one must essentially turn coal into a liquid energy source.  Extreme heat and steam used to convert mined coal to synthetic gas that can essentially be transported through pipelines, much like traditional natural gas and oil.

Synthetic natural gas is nothing new, as of 2010 China already had 56 plants in operation.  The United State has one too. It’s called the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in North Dakota, and it began operating in 1984 (yes, the date is creepy).

China has often pointed to the North Dakota plant as a success story and claim to have modeled their synthetic natural gas on its production. What they don’t mention, however, is the drastically different scale. China’s plants will fabricate a total capacity of 37.1 billion cubic meters synthetic natural gas each year. By comparison, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant produces just 1.5 billions cubic meters a year.

Transforming coal into synthetic natural gas is extremely energy and water intensive, so why would China be investing in this energy resource?

It actually takes more energy and water to make synthetic natural gas than simply burning coal itself. In fact, the previously mentioned study reported using synthetic natural gas to create electricity will lead to 36 percent to 82 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than simply burning coal. The report concludes China’s plants would “produce seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional natural gas plants and will use up to 100 times the water as shale gas production.”

Although it’s more energy intensive, using synthetic natural gas to create electricity doesn’t emit as much smog and particulate matter as burning coal. Chinese cities has been under extreme attack by environmental organizations and citizens alike to address the sickeningly dense and ever present air pollution.

All the new synthetic natural gas power plants will be built in far west regions of China around inner Mongolia and Xinjiang. These locations are far enough away from the major that cities that, at least in theory, the plants closer to the cities could shut down, and reducing smog and air pollution in urban areas. These plants might create conditions for less particulate matter being pumped into the atmosphere but the energy and water demands only continue to rise.

Synthetic natural gas might be fixing one issue, but it is undoubtedly creating more. How effective can this patchwork approach be?

Robert B. Jackson, second author on the recent study, Nicholas Professor of Environmental Sciences, and director of the Duke Center on Global Change, says, “Using coal to make natural gas may be good for China’s energy security, but it’s an environmental disaster in the making.”

 Image: Jonathan Kos-Read

The post China’s Synthetic Natural Gas: Is It Really Clean Energy? appeared first on EcoSalon.

PG&E’s safety codes and corporate responsibility seem questionable at best.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the same people people who brought you Hinkley groundwater contamination (the one with cancer, not the one with Julia Roberts) would like you to know that they feel just terrible about all of the recent explosions. And also some of the older ones, like the one that mutilated nine Bernal Heights firefighters in 1963. And definitely the San Bruno blast that killed eight people last year. But darned if those ancient, cracked pipes just won’t stop shattering unexpectedly and turning leafy neighborhoods into nightmarish, flame-ravaged hellscapes when you put off fixing them for five or eight decades!

Chris Johns, the president of PG&E, explained that the company was “deeply sorry” to have caused the explosion, in a tone that came off roughly as apologetic as Reed Hasting’s latest blog post about changing Netflix DVD delivery. Look, PG&E would like to fix the hundreds of rusty, improperly welded pipes crisscrossing the Bay Area left over from the Truman administration. In an ideal world, would a substantially smaller number of their products and services kill people? Of course. Would they set fewer homes on fire? Sure, why the hell not. But we don’t live in that magical fantasy land with “safety codes” and “corporate responsibility” and “PG&E not making your house blow up.”

Do you have any idea how many memos that PG&E employees have sent each other over the last 20 years? At least 250,000, according to the 250,000 memos they were forced to recently submit to the California Public Utilities Commission. Well, give or take a few internal messages. Specifically the ones concerning historical, metallurgical practices and upkeep, or “why our pipes keep setting everybody on fire.” What do you expect from them? To keep records of all of these memos in some sort of, I don’t know, centralized mainframe data center? A series of computers? When they’re already running themselves ragged trying to put out all the fires?

But they really are working on making things better. They bought three solar power plants! And what is the sun if not a big, friendly, helpful series of explosions? So stop worrying. And just ignore that odd, faint hissing noise and vague metallic smell. It’s probably nothing.

Image: Indybay.org

The post PG&E Trying Very Hard Not to Kill Everybody appeared first on EcoSalon.

Are Americans optimistic about the environment, ignorant or just plain lazy? Are they fatigued from all the “green” messaging and cause marketing out there? Or are they just complacent? A recent Gallup poll has shown that “over time, Americans’ concerns about environmental problems have generally declined.”

That’s hard to believe when there’s more environmental damage caused by Americans and more news about this available to us than ever before.

Just this week, ships are avoiding their normal cargo routes so that they can keep burning dirty fuel and skirt new air pollution laws around California.

And across the country, residents in the watershed areas of Skaneateles and Otisco lakes in New York are fighting a bill that would permit “hydrofracking” – a natural gas mining method that’s destructive to ecosystems and freshwater – on their private lands.

These examples are both driven by economic concerns. The shippers don’t want to pay fines or spend money on improved rigs. New York’s cash-starved state government is considering a bill that will bring taxpayer dollars to the state, with mining jobs and corporate real estate deals to replace low profit farms that are on some of that private property now.

Making matters worse, state budgets for environmental programs have been slashed, so even government agencies are holding out a tin cup or soliciting donations to support their good green work. In Atlanta, the House just passed a bill that would allow their own Department of Natural Resources to conduct fundraising through a non-profit to make up for a smaller slice of the taxpayer money pie.

At least defense budgets are also feeling the pinch.

If a 20-year low in levels of environmental concern wasn’t totally caused by money problems, Gallup suggested optimism may be to blame; Americans believe the environment is improving.

Basic Reading:

“Global warming concerns have ebbed and flowed, dipping to the lowest point since 1997. They’ve fallen precipitously since 2007, from 41% who worry ‘a great deal’ to 28%. Of eight [key environmental] issues, Americans now worry the least about global warming and the most about drinking-water pollution, which has often been a top concern.” – via USA Today

“Thanks in large part to partisan bickering and scandals such as Snowpocalypse and ClimateGate, confusion over global warming has reached a fevered pitch. At the same time, the economic slump is swallowing the public’s attention. What we may be witnessing is an endemic shift in prioritization, which raises the question: What, if anything, can instill a renewed sense of purpose?” – Mother Jones

“Climate hasn’t yet become as partisan an issue as, say, health care and taxes. But it’s getting there.” – How Republicans Learned to Reject Climate Change via NPR

Further Resources:

A debate over cause marketing fatigue – how many messages will consumers care about? – AdAge

“‘Do not wait for extraordinary circumstances to do good action; try to use ordinary situations.’ Jean Paul Richter. It seems that we humans are caught in the crushing curl of our own giant wave of trash. A long, sad and glorious tradition of using and dumping that spans the entirety of our time on earth…” – SuperEco.com

Ohio air quality officials complain the EPA is “trying to make us do too much too quickly,” on cutting smog – Cleveland.com

Are American Students Lazy? – InsideHigherEd.com

According to an EPA report, our air is getting cleaner relative to population growth and gross domestic product increases.

Image: rolands.lakis

The post EcoMeme: Optimism vs. Laziness appeared first on EcoSalon.