In recent months, protests over the severe illnesses caused by China’s heavy industries have resulted in a crackdown on polluters. Leading the charge has been the state-run media, which the central government is now using to gain control over corrupt local authorities and powerful commercial enterprises.

Last August, residents of Chongqing town in the central Chinese province of Shaanxi surrounded the town’s huge lead works, run by China’s largest lead smelting company. It was a brave act in a totalitarian country. But the people of Chongqing were angry because the town’s doctors had found that of the 731 children they checked, 615 were suffering from lead poisoning caused by pollution from the Dongling Lead and Zinc Smelting Company.

The scandal erupted after a six-year-old girl named Miao Fan complained about a stomach ache. “At first we thought she was trying to avoid school,” said her mother. “We took her to the hospital and found my daughter had got lead poisoning. I never heard of that before, and I suggested my friends nearby have their children checked too.”

In all, 166 of the children were treated in local hospitals. Each had lived near the giant smelter. After the brief protest on Aug. 3, a local newspaper reported the story on an inside page and town authorities issued a bland statement. The plant had emitted 1.11 tons of lead into the air and local watercourses in the previous year, the authorities said, but it had met all national environmental safety standards.

In the days before online news, that would probably have been the end of the matter. But reporters from the state Xinhua Online news service spotted the local item and a week later they showed up to investigate. Emboldened, the parents resumed their protest. They surrounded the smelter, tore down the wall, ransacked the offices, and destroyed machinery.

Now Xinhua had a story. Its splash on Aug. 18 was accompanied by an editorial that asked: “If pollution standards were met, how is it that people are still poisoned by lead?” Within days, the factory was closed, and the Dongling case had set off a chain reaction across the country, as more and more citizens protested against metal smelters and mines, and Chinese journalists became bolder in reporting the protests.

If this were happening in the West, it would hardly be extraordinary that a major news story had developed out of events such as those in Chongqing. But in China, this was something new, points out Qian Gang, a leading Chinese journalist who studied how the story grew for the China Media Project, a research group at the University of Hong Kong. The major Communist Party news media, such as Xinhua, are starting to report environmental stories, he says. “High-level party media have taken the lead.” Of all the Chinese media, they are proving to be “the fiercest, both in revealing the facts and in offering shrill criticism.”

Why? In the past, the party media had always supported officials and covered up any scandals or misdeeds. If anyone was going to break such a story, it would likely have been the new commercial media. But Qian Gang notes that in China today, the central authorities often use the media as a means of exerting control over wayward local authorities or powerful commercial enterprises. It is also, he says, a means of monitoring popular discontent, known as yulun jiandu, or “supervision by public opinion.”

China has become ground zero for citizen action on new health and environmental issues.

After the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, which became a turning point in reporting in China, President Hu Jintao articulated his new press policy, which demanded that party media strengthen what he called “public opinion channeling.” Chinese media are referring to this as “grabbing the microphone” — under this strategy, the authorities control commercial media tightly, while affording privileges to the central party media, including a license to pursue investigations.

Pressure following the Xinhua reports resulted in the Dongling metals plant closing and 11 local public health officials being disciplined. Authorities distributed food that can help remove lead from the body, such as laver, garlic, wulong tea, and seaweed.

As the fastest-growing economy in the world for the past two decades, China is one of the world’s most polluted nations. But it is also becoming ground zero for citizens’ action on the new health and environmental issues created by industrialization. In 2008, there was widespread public anger in China about toxins in food and consumer products. But in recent months, public attention has shifted to environmental pollution near mining and industrial workplaces. And Chinese media, headed by former party propaganda officials, are bringing the scandals to national — and sometimes international — attention.

Many of the concerns resemble those of previous eras in Europe and North America, especially the discovery of outright poisoning from heavy metals like lead, which causes symptoms ranging from abdominal pain and headaches to anemia and impaired neurological development in children. In severe cases, children can lapse into a coma and die.

To date in China, protests and media scrutiny have led to a number of factory closings. But public protests appear ready to continue as government authorities struggle to assess where risks lie and how to combat them.

Days after the Dongling story made headlines, the authorities in Hunan in southern China shut a manganese smelter near Wugang, and detained two executives, after more than 1,000 people protested when 1,300 children fell ill — again from lead poisoning. Some were losing their hair, according to press reports. The plant had been open for only 15 months. Reporters from Xinhua discovered it had been operating without the approval of the local environmental protection bureau.

Then three smelters were shut in Jiyuan city in Henan, the world’s leading center for the manufacture of the metals used in batteries. And in September, villagers blocked a major road in Fujian in eastern China. They were protesting the discovery that 121 children out of 287 tested in three communities were suffering from lead poisoning, apparently a result of pollution from the local battery factory. The factory, which only opened in 2006, suspended production.

In January, another battery factory, at Dafeng City in Jiangsu province, shut after 51 children became ill with lead poisoning. Again the factory had expanded without permission. Lead is not the only metal causing health problems. In another case that came to light in Hunan last fall, doctors diagnosed 509 inhabitants of Liuyang and Zhentou suffering from cadmium poisoning, which causes kidney and liver damage, and even cancer. Two residents had died before it was uncovered. Locals blamed the Changsha Xianghe plant, which opened in 2003 to manufacture zinc sulphate, an additive in animal feed.

Metals like lead and cadmium are increasingly recognized as health threats near Chinese mines.

The risks in Changsha were hardly unknown. In 2000, U.S. authorities had banned zinc-based fertilizer imports from China after discovering they were contaminated with cadmium. But Xinhua reported that the Changsha factory had been heedlessly discharging industrial waste containing cadmium into watercourses that villagers used to irrigate their crops.

Metals like lead, cadmium, and zinc are also increasingly recognized as environmental and health threats in Chinese mining areas. In southern Guangdong, where rivers run orange and white with contamination, Chinese journalists have dubbed some communities “cancer villages.”

One facility under attack in 2009 was the state-owned Dabaoshan mine, which discharges acidic water laced with metals such as cadmium, killing most life in the Hengshi River, a major waterway in the area. Villagers near the mine drink and irrigate their rice crops with well water contaminated with cadmium and zinc. A 2009 study by Ping Zhuang, of the South China Botanical Garden at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, confirmed dangerous levels of the metals in paddy soils and local food.

Adults suffer high rates of colon cancer. And Qing-Song Bao of the Department of Food Safe Supervision in Yixing reported that children downstream of the mine had high levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc in their bodies. He linked this to high rates of anxiety, depression, social problems, somatic complaints, difficulty concentrating, and delinquent and aggressive behaviour.

Faced with a crescendo of public concern, the central authorities in China two years ago launched a Pollution Source Census, demanding that the estimated 15,000 polluting factories, as well as mines and farms, come clean about their emissions, which often exceed formal license limits. The government insisted the aim was to evaluate rather than prosecute, and that legal action would only follow if companies continued the cover-up. The census results were published in February, revealing twice as much water pollution as previously recognized.

One scientist said pollution was responsible for a tenth of all birth defects in China.

The pollution census may be lifting the lid on a story bigger than anyone has yet guessed. Last year a genetics professor at Nanjing University, Hu Yali, told journalists he believed environmental pollution was responsible for a tenth of all physical defects in Chinese infants. That was especially alarming since the vice-minister in charge of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, Jiang Fan, had warned that birth defects had risen by 40 percent in China since 2001. She blamed emissions from mining and chemical industries and announced a new screening program for women contemplating pregnancy who lived in the eight provinces with the worst problems.

But while national authorities and media may push for reform and openness, local officials often quash protests and cover up even the worst pollution. Last summer, Chinese civil rights activists reported that Sun Xiaodi, an environmentalist in Gansu province, had been arrested along with his daughter and sent for “re-education” after exposing pollution problems at a uranium mine. Chinese law, at least in theory, protects whistleblowers who report environmental pollution. But the pair was charged instead with “providing state secrets overseas.”

And even in Chongqing, the local cliques appear to be back in charge. Local police have warned residents that there will be repercussions if they speak to the media. Some protesters have been accused of being members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement. Officials are even reported to have tried to discourage doctors from conducting tests for lead poisoning on new babies.

Late last month, the Dongling smelter announced that it will shortly reopen. One of the original protesters, Yang Tagu from the poisoned village of Sunjianantou, told reporters, “They want us to remain silent when the factory resumes production.” That may be so. But given the new-found activism of citizens and journalists, silence is in increasingly short supply in China today.

Author Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He is environment consultant for “New Scientist” magazine and author of the recent books “When The Rivers Run Dry and With Speed and Violence.” His latest book is “Confessions of an Eco-Sinner: Tracking Down the Sources of My Stuff.”

Related posts:

• Air Pollution in China Contributing to Drought — Food Shortages Possible
• U.S.-China Green Tech Summit — A Conference Not to be Missed
• Green Media Panel: Practical & Legal Considerations for Communicating Your Message
• Wind Energy Could Meet China’s Energy Needs Until 2030
• Iceland Tops Environment List As U.S., China and India Lag Behind

The Northern California Spring Vision Quest will be held in the largest remaining area of wilderness in California, with over 87,000 acres of beautiful wild open spaces.

The terrain of the park is rugged, varied, and beautiful, with lofty ridges and steep canyons. Once the home of Ohlone Indians, the park is now home to a fascinating variety of plants and animals.
Vision Quests are powerful practices that have help people to tap into a deep wisdom that can provide profound guidance and insight. Many people around the world have benefited from immersing themselves in nature to seek wisdom, truth, and beauty. This is because the Earth speaks to us all if we care to listen.

Vision Quests are wonderful ways to:

> Find inner peace
> Find answers from the heart
> Connect deeply with nature and other living things
> Face your fears and step into courage
> Deepen your meditation practice or learn to meditate
> Communicate with animal totems and spirit helpers
> Contemplate your life’s purpose and receive signs about your life’s meaning
> Be at one with god/the creator/the universe, yourself.

WHERE: Northern California
COST: $700 [Down payment of $350 required to hold your place]
INCLUDES Free 28 Day Pre-Quest Program, [Base Camp Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner]

CONTACT: Catriona at catriona.macgregor@comcast.net
More Info:

The study, announced Thursday but hinted at for months, will revisit research the agency published in 2004, which concluded that the process of hydraulic fracturing did not pose a threat to drinking water. The 2004 report has been widely criticized, in part because the agency didn’t conduct any water tests in reaching that conclusion.

“The use of hydraulic fracturing has significantly increased well beyond the scope of the 2004 study,” EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones wrote in response to questions from ProPublica. The old study, she said, did not address drilling in shale, which is common today. It also didn’t take into account the relatively new practice of drilling and hydraulically fracturing horizontally for up to a mile underground, which requires about five times more chemical-laden fluids than vertical drilling. “This study is the Agency’s response to public concern about this practice and Congressional request.”

The 2004 report was used by the Bush Administration and Congress to justify legislation exempting hydraulic fracturing from oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption came to be known in some quarters as the “Halliburton loophole” and has inhibited federal regulators ever since.

The fracturing technology, in which a mixture of chemicals and water is injected underground with sand at high pressure to crack the earth and release natural gas, made it possible for energy companies to open vast domestic energy reserves across the country and fueled a nationwide boom in drilling activity.

“EPA needs to finish what is started,” said Gwen Lachelt, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a Colorado-based advocacy group that represents landowners with contaminated water. “We need comprehensive studies of the entire exploration and production process, but this is an important place to start.”

The American Petroleum Institute released a statement saying it expects the study “to confirm what 60 years of experience and investigation have already demonstrated: that hydraulic fracturing is a safe and well understood technology for producing oil and natural gas.”

Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said hydraulic fracturing is one of the industry’s “crowning achievements.”

“Adding another study to the impressive list of those that have already been conducted and completed is a welcome exercise,” he said.

A series of investigations by ProPublica found that fracturing is the common thread in more than 1,000 cases of water contamination across seven states. In some cases fracturing may have caused dozens of well failures where the cement or steel meant to protect aquifers from the gas and drilling fluids cracked under high pressure, allowing contaminants to seep into the water. In hundreds of other cases the waste and chemicals generated by hydraulic fracturing have been spilled or seeped into surface and groundwater supplies.

Fuller said that Congress’ efforts to allow the EPA to regulate the process “should come to a standstill until this study is completed.”

More than 50 members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored the Frack Act, a bill that would reverse the drilling industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and allow the EPA to regulate fracturing if it chose to do so. The Frack Act also would require companies to disclose the chemicals pumped underground in the process — information that is usually protected as trade secrets. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also conducting a separate investigation of hydraulic fracturing’s impact on water resources.

The EPA has yet to say exactly how the new study will be conducted or when it will begin, but sources within the agency told ProPublica that it will likely involve a number of EPA regional offices in Colorado, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and could build off two related investigations the EPA is undertaking in Wyoming gas fields.

In its announcement Thursday, the agency said it will spend nearly $2 million on the research this year and is asking for more money for next year. It promised a transparent, peer-reviewed process that includes stakeholder input. The EPA is seeking input from its Science Advisory Board on exactly how the study should proceed.

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten appearing courtesy ProPublica

Related posts:

• U.S. Congress Tells EPA to Study Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water
• Congress Launches Investigation Into Gas Drilling Practices
• Drilling Chemicals Found In Drinking Water Near Natural Gas Sites
• Pa. Residents Sue Gas Driller for Contamination, Health Concerns
• New York Drilling Study Shows Environmental Risks Of Water Pollution

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate is close to wrapping up talks ahead of introducing a compromise climate change bill, said a top Democratic lawmaker who discussed ideas with industry groups on Wednesday.

“We’re planning to button up our efforts somewhere I hope next week,” Senator John Kerry told reporters after meeting with a coalition that represents automakers, forestry and paper companies, Big Oil, steel, mining, electricity and others.

Kerry is working with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman on a bill to require U.S. industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases associated with global warming.

Indicating there was still work to be done, Kerry said, “We’re trying to build support as we develop (bill) language.”

Bruce Josten, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, left Wednesday’s meeting with the three senators and told reporters: “They’re being very constructive; they’re trying to figure out how to make this work for the American economy.”

The measure will not take the exact approach of legislation approved by the House of Representatives in June, and by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in November. This would set an economy-wide “cap and trade” direction to reducing carbon pollution.

Kerry said that while “a lot of language is there” to craft legislation, “we don’t have a full outline” yet of a bill.

PRICE COLLAR AND FUEL FEES

The climate bill has been stalled in the Senate and supporters have missed several informal deadlines for producing and passing a bill.

Under cap and trade, companies would face limits on the amount of carbon pollution Washington would let them emit. Those limits would become stricter over the next 40 years, when supporters want an 80 percent reduction from 2005 levels. Also, required pollution permits could be sold on a regulated market.

The three senators also talked about pollution reductions of 17 percent by 2020 below 2005 levels, a goal President Barack Obama has embraced.

The Chamber of Commerce, which says it represents more than 3 million U.S. businesses of all sizes, is staunchly opposed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of carbon dioxide.

The three senators said on Wednesday the bill would pre-empt the EPA from regulating the gases, said a source with knowledge of the meeting.

The EPA is ready to issue final regulations as early as March 31 for automobile carbon emissions. That would clear the way for expanding regulations to smokestack emissions, although the agency prefers Congress tackles that problem.

Instead of an economy-wide cap and trade, the three senators are aiming to impose the market system initially on power companies, which contribute about 40 percent of carbon emissions.

The senators are “talking about allowances for that sector that are built around pollution-reduction targets and prohibiting price spikes,” Josten said.

Power plants would face emissions limits starting in 2012 while big manufacturers and energy-intensive industry would not face limits until 2016, the source said.

The senators presented an eight-page outline to the industry groups but took it back at the end of the meeting, he added.

The bill would also include a hard price collar that would keep carbon prices between $10 and $30 a ton. Any polluter emitting below 25,000 tons a year would not be regulated, the source said.

As for a possible oil industry tax, the senators discussed a fee on fuels linked to the market price of carbon. The fee would be visible to consumers at petroleum pumps and on airline tickets, the source said.

A tax at the oil refinery level that would not be as visible to consumers has also been discussed by the senators.

Once a bill is put together, the Congressional Budget Office will analyze the potential costs to the federal government and the economy. EPA also is expected to conduct a six- to eight-week analysis of the bill before it could be debated on the Senate floor, possibly in June.

Article by Richard Cowan and Timothy Gardner, editing by Mohammad Zargham; appearing courtesy Reuters

Related posts:

• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?
• Climate Bill Passage in U.S. Senate Increasingly Unlikely
• Four Democratic Senators Want Cap-and-Trade Bill to be Postponed
• Waxman-Markey: DOA (Dead on Arrival)?
• Cap-and-Trade Bill To Face Tough Fight in U.S. Senate

Do they really work to improve the quality of our air and water? Are they worth their cost in terms of regulatory burden and costs of compliance? In short, yes! To some extent, our regulatory programs are a trial and error affair. We can’t always know the ultimate effectiveness of a new program nor its ultimate costs. We can’t always predict the economic benefits of new regulations either since they invariably lead to innovation and generate new inventions and jobs.

The US has been monitoring the quality of our air and water for decades, so we can track the effectiveness of our programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making the most recent data available. Air pollution impacts public health, the environment, and the Earth’s climate, and understanding these impacts are important priorities for the agency.

EPA regulatory actions and voluntary efforts have led to cleaner cars, industries and consumer products, that in turn have contributed to improvements in the nation’s air. They have also led to developments of new pollution control systems for power plants and other major sources such as Selective Catalytic Reduction, a technology that removes Nitrogen Oxides from emissions by converting it to Nitrogen and water.

Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants: ground-level ozone, particle pollution, lead, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. Emissions of toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, have declined about 40 percent nationwide between 1990 and 2005.

These reductions are helping to improve public health by decreasing the number of emergency room visits, respiratory illnesses, and premature deaths. Positive impacts can also be seen in the environment, with regional haze decreasing.

Despite this progress, about 127 million Americans live in counties violating at least one of the national air quality standards. The agency has taken recent actions to tighten air quality standards to help ensure improvements in air quality for everyone.

EPA’s most recent evaluation of air pollution, Our Nation’s Air, Status and Trends Through 2008, presents trends in air quality measurements, analyzes national emissions from key industrial sectors and takes a look at the relationship between air quality and climate change.

Article by Roger Greenway appearing courtesy ENN

photo: Jami Dwyer

Related posts:

• US High Speed Rail Is A National Embarrassment. A Global Comparison
• Two Clean Tech Applications Enter Peer-to-Patent Review
• Big Support, Potential for Mid-Atlantic Wind Power
• Better Place Refuels Electric Car Commuters In Israel
• Europe Calls for $73 Billion in Energy Research

CleanTechies had four questions about his new book.

CleanTechies: You promise a balanced look in your title, and you give the global warming nay-sayers a chapter. Why do you feel it’s important to take this approach?

William F. Stewart: I know it is a cliché, but skepticism really is the lifeblood of science. Historically, it is through the intense questioning of conventional wisdom that advancement has been possible. Although there are certainly a lot of cynics and charlatans masquerading as skeptics, good faith skepticism itself must be embraced if we are to achieve new discoveries.The reality is, climate science is still in its adolescence–just decades old. If you mentioned “global dimming” a decade ago, you would have elicited blank stares. But now, aerosol related dimming is a widely accepted climatic forcing mechanism.

Similarly, solar variance and the urban heat island affect, as contributors to global warming, are no longer the fringe theories that they once were. Finally, while climate models and computer programs are doing some incredible things, we have not yet figured out a way to account for all intricate and integrated climactic forces and feedbacks.

None of this is meant to suggest that we do not know enough to be very, very concerned about anthropogenic climate change, but I think it does more harm than good to belittle skepticism out of hand or to sugarcoat the uncertainties.

CleanTechies: What are the three keys to unlocking the mysteries of climate change?

Stewart: First, bias and propaganda can be found on all sides of the global warming debate. It is generally recognized that proposed climate change solutions would result in large-scale economic changes, but these solutions also contain divisive ideological components involving the role of government and internationalization. The book provides several examples of how these “hot button issues” lead to subtle and not-so-subtle bias.

Second, much about our climate remains a mystery. Although the basic mechanisms of global warming are well understood, many of the critical details, for example the impact of climate feedbacks, remain shrouded in mystery.

Third, global warming is not just a scientific challenge, but rather presents highly contentious political, economic, and social problems. Because nations of the world will be affected differently, bear different historic responsibility, and assign different priority to climate change, any international agreement will require an “apples to oranges” compromise that will present formidable political barriers.

CleanTechies: Give us a glimpse of your visions for the sustainable future.

Stewart: While it’s obviously a plus to upbeat, I am going to be realistic here. Sustainability can only follow an international commitment, and an international commitment will only follow a more broad-based acknowledgement of the peril. Let’s face it, volcanoes, the ice-albedo effect, carbon sinks, el Niño, the Kyoto Protocol, population growth, melting permafrost, peak oil, and the Hockey Stick Graph are a lot to swallow–not to mention integrate.

The IPCC, NOAA, and the National Academy of Sciences have sounded the clarion call, but real solutions will require a grassroots call for action.

The truth is, the question of whether substantial action will occur before some semi-apocalyptic combination of resource depletion and warming remains squarely in doubt. The good news is that, while no single renewable energy will likely serve as a silver bullet, promising new technologies continue to emerge.

CleanTechies: What are the short-term solutions to climate change?

Stewart: There is a section near the end of the book titled “Picking the Low Hanging Fruit.” Chief among the immediate, no-brainer, opportunities are energy efficiency, combining climate change and energy security strategies, encouraging a robust debate on nuclear energy, implementation of smart grid technology, and development of infra-structure and incentives for wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other renewables.

By comparison, hydrogen, carbon sequestration, biofuels, tidal, and wave energy offer long term potential, but are not short-term solutions.

Related posts:

• Geoengineering — A Magic Bullet Against Global Warming?
• China Nods to Warming Skeptics, Glaciers Continue to Melt
• Book Review: World Ethics and Climate Change
• Web Application Allows Easy Analysis of Climate Pledges
• Boost your CleanTech career: Polish your resume and visit these Job Fairs!

The government awarded leases to companies to construct six wave energy projects and four tidal project off the Scottish coast in what experts say would be the first developments of their kind on a large commercial scale.

Construction would cost £4 billion ($6.1 billion) and require another £1 billion ($1.53 billion) in government funding to upgrade the national electric grid. But First Minister Alex Salmond said tapping into the resources of Pentland Firth, a strait north of Scotland that is known for its strong tides, can make the country the “powerhouse of Europe.”
If successful, experts predict, the projects could power 750,000 of Scotland’s 2.3 million homes and generate four times as much electricity as a former Scottish nuclear power station in Caithness.

“Leading international energy companies and innovators continue to be drawn to Scottish waters, which boast as much as a quarter of Europe’s tidal and offshore wind resource and a tenth of the continent’s potential wave capacity,” Salmond said.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

photo: silverxraven

Related posts:

• World’s Largest Hydro-Electric Wave Energy Converter Launched (+Video)
• EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements
• Australia Invests in World’s First Utility-Scale Wave Power Project
• EPA to Curb Ship Air Emissions
• Senators Seek ‘Buy America’ Provision for Clean Energy Projects

Finding the information you were looking for was not always easy, and not always free. Now things are getting a little easier, and more information is obtainable for free.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is providing Web access, free of charge, to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory. This inventory contains a consolidated list of thousands of industrial chemicals maintained by the agency.

The EPA is also making this information available on Data.gov, a Web site launched to provide public access to important government information.

“Increasing the public’s access to information on chemicals is one of Administrator Jackson’s top priorities,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “The American people want easily accessible information on chemicals, and today’s action is part of a series of ongoing steps that EPA is taking to empower the public with this important information.”

Until now, the consolidated public portion of the TSCA Inventory has only been available by purchase from the National Technical Reports Library or other databases. By adding the consolidated TSCA Inventory to the Agency’s website and to Data.gov, EPA is making this information readily available to the public at no cost.

Currently, there are more than 84,000 chemicals manufactured, used, or imported in the United States listed on the TSCA Inventory. However, EPA is unable to publicly identify nearly 17,000 of these chemicals because the chemicals have been claimed as confidential business information under TSCA by the manufacturers.

Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, the EPA has already begun a series of steps to provide greater transparency on chemical risk information, including an announcement in January that signaled the agency’s intent to reduce a certain type of confidentiality claim, or Confidential Business Information claim, on the identity of chemicals.

In the coming months, the EPA will take further steps to increase transparency and make more information available to the public, including adding TSCA facility information, and the list of chemicals manufactured to the Facility Registry System. The FRS is an integrated database that provides the public with easier access to EPA’s environmental information and better tools for cross-media environmental analysis.

The addition of TSCA facility and chemical databases to FRS will provide the public with information on the facilities in their communities using industrial chemicals.

Article appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

photo: cyborgsuzy

Related posts:

• Drilling Chemicals Found In Drinking Water Near Natural Gas Sites
• Contaminated Tap Water Calls for Urgent Improvement of Water Systems
• Climate Change: Time to get the muck out
• State of Green Business Strong Amid Recession, Says Report
• Plastic Industry Needs To Adopt Clean Technology

Qualifying costs include, but are not limited to, certain manufacturing related costs, software that enables computers or other devices to engage in smart grid functions, and metering devices, sensors, and control devices that are capable of engaging in smart grid functions.

Recently, questions have been raised as to whether the DOE grant under this program is subject to federal income tax.

The IRS, in Revenue Procedure 2010-20, concluded that the DOE grant is not subject to federal income tax.

In Rev. Proc. 2010-20, the IRS noted that the DOE grant is considered a contribution to capital that is not subject to tax under section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that, in the case of a corporation, gross income does not include a contribution of capital to the corporation.

In particular, the Treasury regulations related to Section 118 highlight that contributions to capital include contributions made by a person other than a shareholder, for example, a governmental body for the purpose of enabling the corporation to expand its operating facility.

The corporation receiving the DOE grant must however reduce the basis of the property to which the DOE grant relates to. For example, if a corporation purchases a smart grid related device for $1,000 and receives a DOE grant under the Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program in the amount of $200, the basis of the device shall be reduced by the DOE grant amount.

The resulting basis of $800 is the basis of the property for purposes of depreciation.

Rev. Proc. 2010-20 becomes effective March 10, 2010 and does not apply to non-corporate taxpayers or to DOE grants related to smart grid research, development, and demonstration.

photo: Ian Muttoo

Related posts:

• China to Pass U.S. in Smart Grid Investment in 2010, Study Says
• U.S. Awards $3.4 Billion to Create a “Smart” Electric Grid
• Stimulus Update: Smart Grid Funding Guidelines Released
• Clean Tech Event: Smart Grid Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities
• Smart Grid Needs High-Level Policy Push

The model has since gained in popularity and has been used to forecast oil production worldwide. However, recent studies show that the model does not take into account more complex oil production cycles of some countries. Those cycles can be heavily influenced by technology changes, politics, social upheavals, and other factors.

In 2008 there were dramatic and unprecedented fluctuations in oil prices. The price per barrel rose to $140 which was an all time high; then the price plunged to less than $50 per barrel by the end of the year losing more than 64 percent of the maximum price in less than a three months period.

The supply of crude oil in the international market oscillated accordingly. This behavior affected oil production in all exporting countries.

Yet despite the fluctuations demand for crude oil in some developing countries, such as China and India, has increased in the past few years because of the rapid growth in the transportation sector and consumer demand. The rapid growth in fuel demand has forced policy makers worldwide to include uninterrupted crude oil supply as a vital priority in their economic and strategic planning. Yet world oil supplies have to come to an end.

Forecasting the future is always difficult. With oil some new supply source may be discovered in some unsuspected geographical location as one example. Demand may also increase and wars may consume yet more. Alternate energy sources may also be used or discovered.

Accurate prediction of oil production is affected by fluctuating ecological, economical, social, and political factors, which impose many restrictions on its exploration, transportation, and supply and demand.

The Kuwait study was done to develop a model to predict world crude oil supply with better accuracy than the existing models.

The original Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell shaped curve.

Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production. Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases because of the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the curve (post-peak), production declines because of resource depletion. Hubbert’s Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s. Oil production peaked at 10.2 million barrels a day. Since then, it has been in a gradual decline.

The new Kuwait approach originates from the Hubbert model, it overcomes the limitations and restrictions associated with the original Hubbert model. As opposed to Hubbert single cycle model, this model has more than one cycle depending on the historical oil production trend and known oil reserves.

The world production is estimated to peak in 2014 at a rate of 79 million barrels per day. OPEC has a remaining reserve of 909 barrels, which is about 78 percent of the world reserves. OPEC production is expected to peak in 2026 at a rate of 53 million barrels per day. On the basis of 2005 world crude oil production and current recovery techniques, the world oil reserves are being depleted at an annual rate of 2.1 percent.

Other models predict peak oil production to occur anywhere from today to 2030. The exact date, of course, will not be known until it happens. Dramatic fluctuation in oil prices will continue and a new lifestyle for all of us will have to happen sooner or later.

Article by Andy Soos appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

photo: chrisjfry

For that reason, Howard Friel’s painstaking book The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming represents time well and usefully spent.

Friel identifies two strains in Lomborg’s work: his “theorem” that though global warming is happening and is human-induced it is far from a catastrophe; his “corollary” that there is therefore little need to incur the costs of reducing greenhousegas emissions to the extent urged by concerned experts.

Friel concentrates on Lomborg’s two books The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (2001) and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (2007). The first book covered a range of environmental concerns presented as an exaggerated “litany” of bad news generated by environmentalists. The second focused exclusively on climate change.

Friel spends most of his space on a detailed examination of Cool It. Lomborg has no hesitation in claiming that scientists exaggerate the effects of global warming, and has a large number of end notes supposedly backing his claims with reference to the sources of his evidence. By examining those supporting notes and citations in considerable detail Friel exposes the flimsiness of Lomborg’s claims. They are grounded, to say the least, in bad data. Indeed if Friel’s tracking of the referencing is accurate they are hardly grounded at all.

Take Lomborg’s claim that there will be only 12 inches of sea level rise this century. Of this he attributes 9 inches to thermal expansion. He references the 9 inches to Figure 10.6.1 in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report (AR4). No such figure can be found, says Friel. But assume Lomborg meant Section 10.6.1. It contains three projections (using three SRES scenarios) of thermal expansion. They range between 4 and 15 inches. Lomborg apparently chooses a rough median and presents it as an unwarrantably precise estimate.

The remaining 3 inches of Lomborg’s 12 inch rise come from melting glaciers and ice caps. Here he references Figure 10.6.3 in WG1 of AR4. Again there is no such figure, and he probably meant Section 10.6.3 titled Glaciers and Ice Caps; nowhere in it or its subsections can Friel find any substantiation of the 3 inches claim. Lomborg then referenced a claim that Greenland is expected to contribute 1.4 inches by itself to, we assume, Section 10.6.4. With its subsections it spans five pages, which do not report any 1.4 inch expectation from Greenland.

Lomborg’s further claim that Antarctica will be accumulating ice as a result of increased precipitation and consequently contribute a 2-inch reduction in sea level rise is also referenced to Section 10.6.4 which offers no such report.

Writes Friel, “Lomborg referenced only these IPCC figures to itemize his assertion of a one-foot sea-level rise, even though none of these sources can be found in the IPCC assessment report.”

Friel finds similar loose sourcing to most of Lomborg’s claims. Polar bears are not threatened. Climate change will reduce human mortality due to an offsetting reduction in cold-related deaths. Extreme weather events will be much fewer than predicted by environmentalists. The World Health Organization exaggerates excess fatalities due to global warming. Food concerns related to global warming are vastly overplayed: “We will be able to feed the world ever better.” And $4 billion dollars annually will be enough to bring water and sanitation to those in the world who lack these essential services.

Friel offers frequent useful statements of the scientific consensus on many of these issues against which Lomborg sets himself as an authority empowered in some extraordinary way to see the exaggeration of which he asserts a large scientific community is guilty.

The role of the IPCC, as set out in 1988 by the U.N. Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation, emphasises scientific objectivity, policy neutrality, balanced geographic representation, and consensus. By the time its reports are issued, Friel comments, one might conclude that its product would embody a scientifically sound consensus middle ground among its 2,500 contributors and reviewers.

He marvels that Cool It, which reflects none of these characteristics and which throughout asserts unsubstantiated claims that are completely at odds with the IPCC consensus can yet be described as representing “the practical middle” (Wall Street Journal) or “the pragmatic center” (New York Times). Lomborg has successfully competed with the IPCC in the United States.

Friel provides a telling analogy:

The favourable coverage of Lomborg and his books are to global warming what the triple-A ratings for mortgage-backed securities were to the U.S. financial system — misguided seals of approval with catastrophic consequences.

More catastrophic, Friel notes, in the case of climate change than in the case of financial systems which can presumably be repaired. His verdict on the part played by publishers and journalists:

Lomborg’s success largely reflects an ability of elite publishing houses and news organizations to contruct an alternative but counterfeit network of knowledge about an issue of the highest public importance.

In the light of his thorough scrutiny of Lomborg’s claimed sources Friel considers it legitimate to maintain that Lomborg’s books are an assault on science, as Scientific American did when it convened a forum of distinguished scientists to write a rebuttal to The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001. Friel reports this and other authoritative responses to Lomborg’s earlier book in some detail.

He also asks whether the success of Lomborg’s books in a cultural sense is a manifestation of a broader “assault on reason,” described by Al Gore in his book of that title as a systematic breakdown of rational consideration of the major challenges facing the US and the world.

There’s probably little reason to expect that a book like Friel’s will put a dent in the popularity Lomborg commands. Denial is rampant at present. And the book is not a light read. However, it has elicited a lengthy response from Lomborg himself, to which Friel has replied on his publisher’s Web site.

He comments there that his previous experience in the hermeneutics of deception mostly dealt with books and texts that sought to justify war:

Lomborg’s books are no worse then those, but they are no better. Perhaps twenty or fifty years from now, if and when the fuller impacts of man-made global warming are more apparent, people might argue that they were worse. This is because at least wars usually end whereas global warming past a certain point probably won’t.

Which is all the more reason to persist with trying to focus public attention on the real science and expose the falsity of confident deniers and delayers. And good reason to welcome what Howard Friel’s book has contributed to that exposure.

Article by Bryan Walker appearing courtesy Celsias.

Related posts:

• T. Boone Pickens – greedy capitalist or caring environmentalist?
• World Bank book with alarming figures for the developing world: “Financing Energy Efficiency: Lessons from Brazil, China, India, and Beyond”
• Wastewater: Dow Chemical Licenses BioPetroClean’s Tech To Gobble Up Oil
• Wind Energy: Bird kills on the radar
• Riding the Green Wave

As pressures for a stronger, smarter, more efficient electricity infrastructure heighten and utilities continue to select and deploy these 21st-century smart grid technologies, concepts of open, scalable, IP-based communication lead the way. SmartSynch conference sessions will be led by a broad group of utilities and smart grid experts and will feature focused discussion on the pressures facing today’s utilities to have the most secure and best performing smart grid solution possible.

Don’t miss this exclusive opportunity to learn more about how today’s advanced communication technology is enabling the smart grid.

Join a unique event to meet world water leaders, and the winners of Imagine H2O’s Prize. Our Inaugural Prize Competition highlighting Water Efficiency, is the culmination of:

• A global search for ideas;
• Proposals from over 50 contestant teams;
• Institutional investments by the Royal Bank of Canada, Cooley Godward Kronish, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Full Circle Fund
• Hundreds of hours of analysis by an elite panel of water experts.

Competition Update: Winners Announced

At our Showcase, learn about the exciting new businesses that have risen to the surface. Meet the winning teams and other finalists, the elite water experts who selected them, and Imagine H2O’s ecosystem of water leaders, including John Bohn, Chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Ambassador John A. Bohn
Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission

Plus, enjoy great food, sustainable wines, water-themed art, music, and join the network of people driving business solutions to the water crisis.

Ticket sales will support Imagine H2O as we identify and promote the best innovative solutions to the world’s water challenges, and build a supporting ecosystem of entrepreneurship and investment.

Program Agenda:

VIP Session:

6pm-7pm:

* VIP welcome from Imagine H2O Program Manager Brian Matthay and Director of Operations Scott Bryan
* Exclusive networking sessions with the three winning startups
* Socializing
* Wine tasting with Napa Green Certified Vintners
* Live music
* Media session

General Admission Session (VIPs welcome):

7pm-7:45pm:

* Exhibit floor featuring Imagine H2O prize winners and finalists, water agencies, Imagine H2O partners
* Live music
* Wine and appetizers
* Water-inspired photography from Robert Dawson
* Free water testing (bring your tap water) from the San Fracisco Public Utilites Commission and East Bay Municipal District
* Video interviews

8pm-8:30pm:

* Welcome from Imagine H2O Chairman Tamin Pechet
* Remarks on the future of water in California and beyond, Ambassador John Bond, Commission of the California Public Utilities Commission
* Teaser presentations from the Imagine H2O Prize winners

8:30pm-9pm:

* Networking and social time
* Wine tasting with Napa Green Certified Vintners
* Food and beverages

Using technology effectively is critical to the success of virtual teams. Knowing why, when and how to employ the right tools, at the right time, for the right need, and how the virtual team environment impacts your business processes makes all the difference. This course will give you a vendor and product neutral perspective of what it means to work in a virtual environment and provide real-world experience and best practices from a people, process and technology perspective.

- V2G, the science and mechanics:
What are the software and control systems necessary for successful V2G? Will this be created independent of Utilities and/or electric vehicle manufacturers?
What are the electric vehicle’s specifications that we need to improve upon to make V2G realistic?
What are the safety issues involved in V2G?
What new systems and analytics are necessary in light of V2G?

- V2G, the market and incentives:
The two-way communication of V2G allows a vehicle or fleet of vehicles to serve as an auxiliary service asset on the grid.
What regulatory issues does this raise?
What economic issues does this raise?
Will electric vehicle drivers make enough money to offset the added costs of EV’s?
Will V2G be the driver of the electric vehicle market?
What new apps will V2G enable?

- Pilot Projects:
What are the current pilot projects? What is their status?

Agenda
8:30am PST Reception/Networking
9:00am PST Keynote: Tom Gage, CEO & President AC Propulsion
9:20am PST Panel Discussion Begins
10:20am PST End of Panel Discussion: Q&A from the audience
11:00am PST Networking, snacks and beverages
12:00pm PST End of Seminar

————————————————————————————————————–
AGENDA
 
8:30 am PST:  Reception
9:00 am PST:  Introductions
9:10 am PST: Panel Discussion Begins

INTEGRATION OF RENEWABLES FROM PERSPECTIVE OF:

• Supplier of Software, Solutions, and Applications
• Supplier of Networking/Communications
• Provider of Smart Grid all-in-one solutions
• Provider of Energy Storage
• Regulator
• Utility

10:30am PST: International Section

Visio Conference Frankfurt—Paris—San Francisco

A COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO SMART GRID REGULATORY SCHEMES

During the international portion of our conference we will ask an international array of regulated utilities as well as smart grid vendors to relate their experiences with different regulatory schemes within the constantly evolving smart grid arena.

• As a smart grid vendor, what do you think can and should be done on a regulatory level to promote international interoperability?
• As a smart grid vendor, what is your assessment of the effectiveness of your country’s subsidy schemes for smart grid deployment? From your position what other subsidy schemes should be considered?

• As an energy provider, what do you think can and should be done on a regulatory level to promote international interoperability?
•  As an energy provider, what is your assessment of the effectiveness of your country’s subsidy schemes for smart grid deployment? From your position what other subsidy schemes should be considered?
• As an energy provider, what has been your experience with regulatory schemes encouraging the integration of renewable power? From your position what other regulatory schemes should be considered?
• As an energy provider, what has been your experience with regulatory schemes for utility cost recovery? From your position what other cost recovery schemes should be considered?

Q&A
11:45 am PST: International Q&A
12:15 pm PST: End of conference followed by networking
————————————————————————————————————–

SPEAKERS

Panelists to include:
 
ABB, Dr. Klaus von Sengbusch, Head of Smart Grids Projekte
VATTENFALL EUROPE DISTRIBUTION GmbH, Dr. Erik Landeck, CEO
T-SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL GmbH, Dr. Carl-W. Ackermann, Head of Smart Grids Projects
SAP AG, Dr. Anke Weidlich, Senior Researcher
BIRD&BIRD LLP, Valerian Jenny, Senior European Consultant, Lawyer

E.ON Metering
ERDF/ EDF
AREVA, Regis Hourdouillie, Director Smart Grid Program
Regulation Commission of Electricity, Cécile George, Director, Electricity Access

eMeter, Larsh Johnson, CEO

MEGAWATT STORAGE FARMS, Edward CAZALET, Vice President & Founder

Moderation:

LOGICA management consulting

Paris: Cyril Cortina

Frankfurt: Norbert Clasen

PRTM 

Palo Alto: Patrice Maheo

March 01 to April 30, 2010

Renewed Function is an interior installation designed by Joe Gonzalez intended to inspire and challenge us to approach garbage recycling in more creative and effective ways.

This green installation encourages us to take items that we would normally discard and give them a new purpose. It also allows us to rethink how we can reuse our garbage for a more eco-friendly environment.

During the two-month exhibition, Casa Frela Gallery will be using its office space on the 2nd floor as the site of the installation to show how to reuse space as well as everyday items such as a empty coffee can as a pencil holder or a small jar as a paper clip container.

Local Harlem artist Joe Gonzalez (aka Dark Green Joe – www.darkgreenjoe.com) has been involved in numerous careers including theatre, television, special events, design, construction and eco-consulting. As an artist he focuses primarily on B&W photography and various “reuse” projects. As a global citizen, he is constantly reading and learning about the impact that each of us makes on our planet. It is only by stepping outside of the box do we begin to really grasp the scope of the problem and what we can do to help address it. Joe is currently launching a non-profit that gives everyday people the opportunity to help fund small projects in different parts of the world. Visit The Project Solution at www.theprojectsolution.org to learn more.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. Please join Joe Gonzalez at the Casa Frela Gallery, 47 West 119th Street (between Lenox and Fifth Avenues), 2nd Floor, in Manhattan from March 1-April 30, 2010 for his Renewed Function interior installation.

For further information about the installation or about Casa Ferla Gallery, please visit our website or call the gallery at 212-722-8577.

Contact:
Lawrence Rodriguez, Curator and Director of Casa Frela Gallery
47 West 119th Street
New York, New York 10026
(212) 722-8577
events@casafrela.com

On the day of the event (April 15, 2010), the participants will conduct 45-minute interviews with those companies that have agreed to meet the candidates (pre-arranged interview times).

Application deadline: March 30, 2010

All open positions are listed on the website. Interviews in English and/or German.