Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

Obama Administration channels Bush and opens up the seas to oil

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 5th, 2010 in Federal, Global Warming, Ocean, Politics | No Comments »

Last week the Obama Administration announced that it would open up the outer continental shelf or oil and gas production. It was a proposal that is very reminiscent of the Bush Administrations removal of the decades old ban on offshore drilling which I wrote about in “Another short sighted solution that solves nothing.”  While this proposal sounds like a Bush administration plan, it is supposed to be part of a broader energy strategy.  President Obama in is announcement of the plan said:

I want to emphasize that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy.  And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long term.  To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.

The problem with the plan is that I do not thin it will do what it is supposed to do.  The Obama Administration’s plan to open up the OCS will do little to reduce fuel prices or availability of fossil fuels.  It is also naïve to think that the oil and gas developed off our coasts will remain in the country.  That oil and gas will go to the highest bidder no matter where they are located.  It will also subject to the OCS from additional pollution.  Pollution that is caused by the drilling process.  Pollution that is caused by leaks in the systems of offshore drilling platforms, vessels and from the pipelines.  Pollution that may arise from spills and other accidents.

Our oceans are already severely impacted by our pollution.  To increase the amount of chemicals that are leaked into the oceans through the drilling process is not going to help our oceans.  Also, is there were to be a major spill, that would devastate NJ’s economy.  In 200?, NJ tourism was the second or third biggest industry in the State.  If an oil spill was to occur off our coast, it could foul our beaches.  And oil spills do occur.  In January of this oil an oil tanker spilt 450,000 gallons in Port Arthur, Texas.  In 2007 a tanker spilled 57,000 gallons of fuel into the San Francisco Bay causing $70 million of damage to the fisheries and beaches.  I am not even mentioning The Valdez.  By some estimates Hurricane Katrina caused 6.5 millions gallons of oil to be spilled into the environment.

There is another problem with opening up the OCS for oil and gas exploration.  Even though the President suggests this is a short term plan.  The short term plan seems to be counter to the Administrations clean energy platform and to combating global energy. As President Obama said last years United Nations Conference on Climate Change:

Now, as the world’s largest economy and as the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility.  That’s why we’ve renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations.  That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.  That’s why we’ve taken bold action at home — by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

I am also very concern that this new push for more oil and gas signals a retreat from or at least will impact our Country’s move toward renewable energy and to away from a commitment to combat climate change.  How are we going to stop incentivizing oil and gas when we open up more areas for drilling?  Are we going to lease them out for their full value?  How are we going to grow the green energy while telling the world that oil and gas is here to stay?  How do we credibly tell the world that we will lead it in solving climate change, when we cannot let go of the past.

Opening up the OCS for more oil and gas exploration is the wrong policy for many reasons.

Climate Change Networking event

Written by Mike Pisauro on July 17th, 2008 in Global Warming | 1 Comment »

On July 24th, the Leadership in Public Affairs Program at The College of NJ (or as I will always know it as Trenton State College) will be hosting a networking event for local people and organizations involved in climate change. There website and information on the event is here.

Polar Bears left clinging to the ice.

Written by Mike Pisauro on May 14th, 2008 in Endangered Species, Global Warming, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Today the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service took a swing and missed the ball. While today the polar bear has been listed on the Federal Endangered Species list, that listing was as a threatened species and not an endangered species. Additionally, Secretary Kempthorne went out of his way to tell people that this listing will not have any impact on the United States’ climate change strategy. In fact in the press release (click here to read the release) he is quoted:

While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate changes . . . That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.

The press release further made it very clear that this listing would not be used to prevent the exploitation of oil reserves in the arctic. This is clearly a miss on protecting the environment and on forward thinking on climate change. Unfortunately nothing better could have been expected from the current administration.

Once I have had a chance to read the actual proposal, I hope to provide more detail.  In the meantime the NRDC has some good information (click here).

Bush combats global warming with more hot air.

Written by Mike Pisauro on May 5th, 2008 in Global Warming | 1 Comment »

Recently our President made a major announcement. He announced his plan to address global warming and claimed that, “[o]ver the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges.” What approach? Until recently, the Administration had denied that global warming was even occurring or that humans had any impact on it. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court told the EPA that it could not ignore global warming. The Supreme Court further found that greenhouse gas emissions were an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA had authority to regulate the emission. In the year since that ruling has the EPA, controlled by the Bush administration, issued regulations to begin controlling the emission of carbon dioxide? No.

The Plan that has been announced is so visionary that we can probably excuse his almost eight year silence on the subject. The Plan calls for us to stop the growth in emissions by 2025. Our president is not asking for a reduction in overall emissions – he is just asking that, by 2025, we not increase them. Bush is calling for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants to peak within the next 10 to 15 years. He not asking that they begin to reduce their emissions. While the New Jersey and other states are calling for a reduction of overall greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the Federal government is saying that increasing emission between now and 2025 is OK. Bush has touted the billions of dollars the Federal government is spending for next generation nuclear energy, but he has made no mention of any money for renewable energy. He does, however, talk about the investment in developing clean coal technologies.

In his pronouncement Bush went so far as to chide the U.S. Supreme Court for doing its job – reading the clear language of the laws enacted and applying those laws to the facts before it. According to the President, laws enacted thirty years ago, including the Clean Air Act, should not be used to combat air pollution. Bush told us that such decisions were not for the Courts to make but for the legislators. Well, if that is the case, the U.S. Congress and his administration have failed to do their jobs for many many years.

Bush told us that any solution to global warming must take into consideration “an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.” Well, what are the costs of global warming? As it pertains to New Jersey those costs can be great. Several insurers have decided not to renew or write new homeowner policies along the coast of New Jersey. According to the insurers, we are due to a big storm to hit and they do not want to foot the bill for rebuilding.

Our weather is going to change drastically over the next several decades. Depending on whether we actually do something about climate change or continue to have an overdue “honest assessment” that weighs costs and benefits , our climate here in New Jersey could resemble Virginia/North Carolina or Savannah, Georgia. Although winter precipitation could increase by 20 to 30 percent, most of that would be rain – we would lose any chance of actually having a white Christmas. Furthermore, we could lose somewhere between 1 to 3% of the total land area of the State due to sea level rise attributable to global warming. That could have a devastating affect not only on the lives of people living along the coast but on the NJ tourism industry (New Jersey’s number 2 industry). Atlantic City could be subject to complete flooding because of storms once every year to two. Flooding along all of our water ways could become more frequent and more severe.

Global warming will not only reshape the coast of New Jersey, but it will impact our economy as well. As noted above, tourism is the second largest industry in New Jersey but that could very well change what with Atlantic City perpetually under water and our beautiful shore gone. Our agriculture industry could also change from what we know. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, cows will become less productive in producing milk as a result of the heat. Blueberries and cranberries may not be able to grow in the State. Apples also may no longer be able to grow in New Jersey because, like blueberries and cranberries, apple trees need a period of winter weather for optimum growth. The Garden State that we know may not be the one that exists in a few decades.

So while I am glad the President of the United States finally sees that we should be doing something, his plan is a step back from what New Jersey, California and others are already doing to address global warming. The economic, environmental and human costs of not seriously addressing global warming is too great for New Jersey. The Federal Government should follow the lead of these States and not try to drag down the progress that has been made.