Wilderness Campaigns

Memorial Day and our national security- clean energy is an answer

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 23:31:29 +0000

Memorial Day, commemorating those who have fought in wars before us, is not only a reflection of past lives and battles, but also about the galvanizing American spirit which has helped shape generations of manufacturing, technological advances and found creative ways to use our natural resources. At the end of a short work week in Washington, I tend to geek out on our many intersections between our national security and our energy needs, dating back more than a century.

This Memorial Day week, The New York Times ran an editorial calling for investment in “cleaner energy.” There are a few interesting things about this particular piece, aside from it being a thoughtful and comprehensive view on the challenges our nation faces in energy planning today.

First, the editorial summarizes an exchange between a flustered Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes and the Secretary of the Navy. What Mr. Forbes may not have realized in asserting that the Navy had no business in energy issues is that historically, the Department of Defense (formerly the War Department) was the primary force for energy planning as a component of national defense.

In fact, by the 1920s, the nation’s electricity supply was under serious consideration by the War Department as a result of the widespread use of this technology in urban areas of the U.S. and Europe. A post-World War I War Department commissioned a report in 1921 to study the technical challenges of interconnecting the nascent electricity grid. The modern day Department of Energy that-- formed not until 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis-- has dealt with civilian uses of electricity and oil over the past four decades.

But energy and defense have been inextricably linked since the beginning of time, as accounted in David Nye’s famous history of energy, Consuming Power. Our war efforts have historically moved the ball forward on energy issues, from efforts to create nuclear energy to the military’s current use of distributed solar energy to power mission critical work overseas.

Second, the editorial notes the work of the Department of Interior to receive feedback on planning for new infrastructure in the southwest through prescreened solar energy zones. Think of lands held in the public trust, such as those vast western landscapes managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as strategic reserves, managed for their highest and best use to benefit the American public. Many of these federal lands have been assumed by the Department of Defense as grounds for flight training and for missile test training readiness.

Military uses, as well as the preservation of important habitat, are uses that need to fit within our new energy economy. And what is remarkable about the DOI’s inclusive process for identifying solar zones, is that it has resulted in consensus recommendations from industry and environmental groups that are balanced, practical and get the job done.

Like generations before us, we continue to evolve and so does our energy sector. In the year 2012, the United States is ready to take the next step, with overwhelming support for clean, renewable energy from wind and solar. Now is an opportune time to take advantage and participate fully in the $2.3 trillion global market in clean technology. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option.

Just take the Colorado College State of the Rockies Poll released this past January which found that 72% of Arizonans perceived renewable energy as a job creator throughout the west. With job creation being the #1 issue through this next election, Americans should feel a sense of patriotism, knowing that we have an opportunity to promote home grown energy that cuts our need for foreign fuels and aids our national security.

Increasing national security is just one of many reasons that as a society we should transition away from heavy dependence on fossil fuels, but it is a good one. Funding responsibly sited renewable energy projects is a necessity, and an even larger one is making sure that we are maximizing our efficiency, and using the electricity we do produce in the most efficient ways we can. The world just isn’t big enough to accommodate our lifestyles without fostering a practical solution to energy challenges. It’s a challenge America can handle.

Surefire way to beat gas prices

Wed, 16 May 2012 17:25:10 +0000

Image:

The Memorial Day long weekend is coming up, and you’ve probably noticed that gas prices have leveled off from their high prices a few months back. In fact, prices are now 20 cents per gallon lower than they were a year ago.

Whether you’re going to the beach or to the mountains (or maybe a place like the Vermillion Basin), the break at the pump couldn’t have come at a better time for many American families.

With all of the recent debate about drilling and gas prices, you may be wondering why gas prices suddenly calmed down after weeks of steadily climbing higher and higher. Was it the oil companies feeling guilty about their windfall profits? Was a large swath of America opened up to drilling?

Nope – the answer comes from overseas, where a calming Middle East has also calmed Wall Street speculators that had been driving up the cost of oil. The tensions in Iran were adding up to $25 to every barrel of oil (even the ones drilled here in the U.S.) – and those costs were passed on to us, the consumers.

What does this leveling off of gas prices tell us? Well, for starters, the U.S. can’t control gas prices. A study by the Associated Press showed that more drilling won’t lower gasoline prices. And now a study from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows that swings in gas prices happen regardless of how much oil a country produces. Even if we drilled every drop out of ground that we could, the global marketplace would still control the price of oil (which is tied to the price of gas at the pump).

So how do we avoid these wild price swings and keep our wallets safe? The answer comes from a surprising source.

The George W. Bush Institute (yes, that George W. Bush) says we need to move away from oil. A report from the institute calls for better fuel efficiency for cars and trucks as a way to protect the country from economy-destroying swings in the price of oil.

The only way to protect our wild lands from drilling and our wallets from high gas prices is to move away from oil. The oil industry certainly isn’t doing anything to help American consumers – and they clearly don’t need the help.

Keeping public lands and western communities safe from irresponsible “fracking”

Tue, 08 May 2012 21:09:56 +0000

Image:

“Fracking.” It’s a bit of a dirty word – pumping millions of gallons of water, toxic chemicals, and sand into a well to free up oil and gas far below ground. Its widespread use is causing concerns from communities and conservationists worried about the effects it could have on water and land.

The Bureau of Land Management is trying to make oil and gas drilling that uses fracking – officially called “hydraulic fracturing” – a safer proposition for wells on BLM lands. This means instituting new standards for public disclosure of the chemicals and their volumes used in fracking, the integrity of well casings, and the treatment of “flow back water” or waste water that returns to the surface after a well is fracked. It’s also a part of the larger goal of “doing it right” – making smart choices about oil and gas drilling before holes are made in the ground.

The BLM’s draft rules on fracking have several important points. The rule requires temporary storage of “flowback” – the water, sand, and fracking fluid that comes back up out of a well that has been fracked – in lined pits or tanks, which will protect the area. However, this flowback has to be properly disposed of, and the new rules have not yet set standards for handling beyond on-site storage. Fracking fluid can poison streams and rivers near drilling sites, unless the flowback is properly dealt with.

Another important part of the new fracking rules are the standards for well construction. By setting a safety standard for the cement lining (or casing) of the wells, the BLM is trying to ensure that groundwater isn’t contaminated by fracking.

Unfortunately the proposed rules don’t require drillers to publicly disclose information about the fracking chemicals and their volumes until after the drilling has been completed. TWS and others have long argued that the public has a right to know what chemicals are being used in hydraulic fracturing operations before drilling takes place.

Even though the industry insists that fracking is “safe”, many have resisted increasing calls from the public to fully disclose the chemical substance that are put into the ground. Each fracking operation can use tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals. But by keeping communities in the dark until after a well is fracked, it limits people’s ability to protect themselves.

Disclosing the contents of fracking fluids helps communities and first responders be better prepared for a spill, and help determine responsibility for any chemical contamination of underground water supplies.

The BLM’s draft rules for fracking operations on federal public lands are a step in the right direction. Oil and gas drilling will always be a dirty business. Setting safety standards helps protect communities and wild lands and waters from contamination, and part of “doing it right.”

The Environment: A Long Term Investment Strategy?

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:00:00 +0000

Recently, Warren Buffet, often referred to as the “Oracle of Omaha” for his legendary investment strategies, offered a recipe for success in an annual report published by Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Buffet named three “key ingredients” for companies to remain profitable and competitive in the 21st century: invest in “people, communities and the environment,” advising that “taking shortcuts is not the pathway to achieving sustainable competitive advantage, nor is it an avenue toward satisfying customers.”

Buffet also noted that “today our world is changing faster than ever before – economic, geo-political and environmental challenges abound.” Berkshire Hathaway has made significant forward looking investments in renewable technologies including solar. If we heed his words, a smart strategy would be to invest in infrastructure for the future—for example, to link remote areas of the west that contain many of the country’s most excellent renewable energy resources. As Warren Buffet prophesizes, gaining competitive advantage requires businesses to think long term about where people live, how to tread lightly on the land and technologies with a long shelf life.

Remarkably, Congress recognized the wisdom of protecting “people, communities and the environment” over 40 years before Buffet offered his multi-billion dollar advice. In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with overwhelming, and now rare, bipartisan support. The law requires that before undertaking projects that may significantly affect the environment, including air and water resources, federal agencies must assess the impacts of proposals, solicit the input of all affected stakeholders and disclose their findings publicly.

Critically, NEPA recognizes that the public – which includes industry, landowners, local and state governments and business owners – can make important contributions by providing unique expertise. NEPA’s common sense axiom is simply “look before you leap,” which is exactly the type of smart investment strategy Warren Buffet prescribes.

If Buffet’s advice doesn’t win you over, heed the advice of the national security experts, which advocates that renewable energy project developers should consult with military bases at the initial “napkin planning stages” of project development, a practical step towards avoiding project delays due to conflicting uses of the land.

Nowhere are the benefits of public input and environmental analysis more evident than in the current solar development and planning efforts taking place across the west. Solar development has shown NEPA is working—the average time for environmental review for utility-scale solar projects on public lands in 2010 was 1.4 years, well within other permitting time frames for similarly sized projects, and remarkable given these projects’ are unique in scale and complexity.

To spur further responsible investment in large-scale solar , the Department of the Interior has nearly completed a six-state study of the best solar resources on public lands with the lowest environmental and other conflicts. This process—afforded under NEPA’s “programmatic” review, will lead investors and developers to low conflict project sites across the southwest, and result in better projects. Using the NEPA process, the DOI has received invaluable input from industry groups, other agencies, environmental groups and concerned citizens.

Recently however, many in Congress have failed to recognize that long-term economic competitiveness requires both investment in sustainable technologies and robust environmental review. In the past year alone, over forty pieces of legislation have been proposed which aim at weakening or waiving NEPA’s requirements for public participation and early environmental analysis. In reality, circumventing environmental review has the potential to result in “real” costs to projects by ignoring potential alternatives, inviting litigation and delaying permits. And as Mr. Buffet’s advises “taking shortcuts is not the pathway to achieving sustainable competitive advantage” – what’s good for the environment is good for the bottom line.

This piece was co-authored by Stephen Schima of the Partnership Project.