A Green Degree Blog: New Angles On Sustainability

November 19th 2012

Why Aren’t We Kicking Offshore Oil Out For Good? Seriously?

Here’s something I don’t get; offshore oil. As a whole, I simply don’t understand what our global obsession with this wonder-drug fuel source is. It’s dirty, it’s expensive, it requires massive amounts of resources to build, is highly damaging to the environment and so painfully, obviously dangerous in light of recent events (or in fact its entire history) that it astounds me we still continue to advocate new leases and permissions for these things. I mean, who thinks it’s a good idea to slap one of these beasts in the pristine Arctic Ocean? Come on guys, really?

This sheer confusion of mine has been ratcheted up another level as the infamous BP finally gets the bill for it’s excessive throwing up of oil all over the Gulf of Mexico in the now almost myth-like Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010. The sum - a tasty $4.5 billion, and criminal sentences of manslaughter for two supervisors who were deemed responsible for making sure such drilling platforms didn’t spontaneously explode, but failed to do so. The crux of the legal ruling? ‘Gross negligence’, which I think sums it up pretty nicely.

So that’s a mighty fine slap on the wrists for BP then. Company-reputation is no doubt tarnished for life, although it didn’t take a court ruling to make that point obvious, and the damages they’ve been paying out since the event reach into the tens of billions. The world over now sees offshore drilling for what it really can be; a horribly dangerous and potentially catastrophic process of extraction which surely does not warrant the time, effort and money spent on it.

And to take this even further, in what seems like a brutally ironic twist of fate, just a day after this ruling was complete, another oil rig based in the Mexican Gulf went up in flames too, with at least four missing and two possibly dead. I’m not one to call into play an ‘Act of God’, but that kinda stinks of something trying to be said right?

So you’d think with all this negative attention and bad karma within the offshore oil industry that we might be seeing the beginnings of the end for the whole enterprise, or at least of this form of reckless and risky drilling. Unfortunately, I don’t think that happy eventuality will be coming along anytime soon.

The fines BP are being charged, that $4.5 billion, that is barely change for a company as large and wealthy as they are, and is completely trumped by litigation charges and settlements BP will be handling outside of court on the ground of Water Protection Acts and private nuisance. However, this is to be paid out over several years, not in one big wallop, and indeed, BP is not short of cash. The US Department of Defense for one has contracts worth $2.2 billion a year purely to be provided with fuel from the multinational corporation, so in effect, the DoD would have paid off these fines in just over 2 years. More irony?

So Environmentalists Are Satanic, Earth-Worshipping Radicals Now?

|#

A few stories have caught my eye of late, and both have not failed to make me laugh out loud and bring a swift hand to the forehead, striking it with such force as to try and knock what I’ve just read back out of my brain.

Unfortunately, they also haven’t failed to demonstrate the fundamentally ignorant and foolishly confident views of some big-mouthed American speakers on climate science and global change. No doubt you’ve heard of at least one of the offending characters, a certain Lord Monckton, but maybe not the other.

To start off with, I’m going to drive straight into the recent Heartland Institute stories, of which have made be both happy, and concerned for those who listened to such rubbish until now. In a recent Heartland convention, a ‘yearly’ event held by the foundation at which multiple infamous speakers comically attempt to derail climate science and laugh in the face of the literally millions who believe in it. I would love to attend one of these just to experience the inner bubble that these people cohabit, but alas they appear to be nearing their end.

This convention failed spectacularly at attracting the number of attendees as in past years, a combination of their poorly conceived and downright ludicrous billboard project, the dropping of over 35% of their annual funding and a crash in global public perception, all of which showed them for what they’re really worth. However, Lord Monckton, known as one of the most, if not the most outspoken climate denier in history, did not hesitate to rock up and joke about all things climate.

After opening with the a sentence along the lines of “it is hard for us people without any scientific qualifications to tackle these issues, but I thank you for trying”, addressing his loyal fans, before continuing to crack wise about Obama’s birth, and subsequently handing over to a speaker, who for all intents and purposes, stated that global warming is good for people; those old people who are killed by it, “are moribund anyway”. Classy stuff.

As I hope you are doing right now, both these quotes made me laugh aloud, but deeply worried at the same time. Their effective idol in Monckton had just applauded them for tackling something, so deeply rooted in scientific understanding and data, with no such science background whatsoever, it was as though they were the kings of a new age, and the crowd simply chuckled along, comfortable in their own little world. That is highly disturbing.

Obama And The EPA Deal Coal A Killer Blow

|#

The American president and his environmental agency EPA have taken bold steps to reducing the nation’s reliance on coal-fired power plants by introducing new rules which, if upheld, will practically half the allowable emissions from these industries from the next generation of builds onwards. The cap would limit associated carbon emissions at just 1,000lbs per MW/hour, and with the average US coal plant producing in excess of 2,200lbs, that’s an extremely tall order for new builds to meet.

In effect, unless so far untested and relatively immature technologies such as carbon-capture and storage or much more efficient chimney filters are used, this rule blocks any new building of coal plants from the next year into the foreseeable future, as it would be near-impossible for engineers and contractors to guarantee that sort of target. This is not such an issue for natural gas plants, which also come under the watchful eye of the EPA and it’s new regulations, as the average emissions total ~1,135lbs and could quite easily, given better use of existing technologies, meet these targets comfortably.

This is a crucial piece of legislation when you consider the IEA and IPCC reports warning that, unless new fossil-fuel plants are scrapped entirely before 2017, the carbon already locked-in to current and planned plants, and the addition of new builds, will guarantee to tip the climate over the oft-quoted 2˚C rise, and past that is territory we don’t want to be exploring.

As you’d expect, the EPA has come under heavy fire from the Republicans, and even some Democrats fighting for position in coal-rich states, with many seeing it as an attempt by the state to outlaw coal for good. We all know how the Republicans like to view the planet and its resources as a bountiful goods store for humanity to pillage until empty, and to not feel bad about it in the process, simply as we are the dominant species and deserve our just rewards, and so it comes as no surprise to see them lobbying against the rule.

But is surprising, to me at least, that this newly introduced law has made it this far at all. Until now it seemed pretty common place for Obama and his administration to announce new regulations or renewable subsidies at the expense of fossil-fuel funding, only for them to be scrapped under intense pressure from the dirty side of industry, or for them to be ‘tweaked’ to such a degree that their original purpose becomes buried under political twists and turns.

However, with the coming election period looming and America in a state of readiness to choose their next leader, those putting themselves forward from the Republican domain will no doubt fight this and the EPA with anger and ignorance, claiming renewable energy and green-tech are bad for the economy and slash jobs for the population. These comments are despite the growing scientific and political bodies stating that greening the nation actually creates jobs, in the thousands, and can save money in the long run through the lowering of fossil fuel subsidies and generation of cheap, clean electricity. Clearly this does not filter through to Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

It’s certainly brave of Obama, in a time when his presidency could be at its end, to announce such a ruling in a nation famed for its share of emissions and environmental ignorance, and for this he should be applauded. If the carbon cap makes it through the jostling Republicans and lobbying industrialists, it could be the turning point for America, leaving behind it’s coal-fuelled past and progressing towards a cleaner future. Then again, if it’s to be President Romney stepping up, I would probably bid farewell to the EPA and a comfortably temperate future.

Sources - http://www.waterdefense.org/content/coal

Posted at 12:59pm and tagged with: coal, obama, EPA, republican,.