Senior executives in the carbon market predict China will announce plans for a national emissions trading scheme at Copenhagen. From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
China could announce the launch of an emissions cap-and-trade scheme as early as the Copenhagen climate talks in December, according to a senior figure in the carbon market currently working closely with the Chinese government.
Speaking at The Carbon Show in London today, Philippe Chauvancy, director at climate exchange BlueNext, said that the announcement last week that it is to develop China's first standard for voluntary emission reduction projects alongside the government-backed China Beijing Environmental Exchange, could lay the foundations for a voluntary cap-and-trade scheme.
He added that Chinese officials were mostly committed to the idea of a national cap-and-trade scheme and could move quickly over the next few months.
"I believe during Copenhagen you'll see the Chinese and the Americans making a statement on cap and trade," he said.
Chauvancy added that he expected the US to have a national cap-and-trade system up and running in the next two years, but that China could yet beat it to the punch. "I really think China might even get there first," he said. "They have the money, the resources and the will to do it."
He argued that the widely held perception that China was not taking action on climate change was entirely outdated, insisting that the government was fully committed to tackling the issue.
Other delegates at the show agreed China was better positioned to roll out a carbon trading scheme quickly.
Patrick Birley, chief executive of the European Climate Exchange, pointed out that anti-regulation lobbyists in Washington could significantly hamper current efforts to push through cap-and-trade legislation. "China has the ability to impose caps pretty quickly," he observed. "Washington politics are almost designed to slow the process and there will be plenty of lobbying against."
But Mark Kenber, policy director at The Climate Group, said that a powerful counter-lobby was building in the US with growing numbers of businesses in favour of tough action to tackle climate change. "I'd be very surprised if China had a mandatory system in place before the US," he said. "If you look at the industries in America, they're really started waking up to the opportunities offered by new markets."
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Senate Democrats unveil climate bill calling for a 20% cut in emissions
Leading senators say ambitious climate change bill will give America a chance to reclaim its energy independence
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 19.27 BST
Democratic leaders took on the epic challenge of getting the US Senate to act on global warming today with the formal unveiling of a bill proposing an ambitious 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
Senate Democrats turned out in strength for today's launch, which was seen at home and abroad as a crucial moment for advancing Barack Obama's agenda.
But the difficulties ahead were underscored by the senators' deep reluctance to use the words 'climate change' — even in the title of the bill, which is called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.
Instead, senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer couched their bill as a chance for America to reclaim its energy independence by reducing oil imports.
"This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future," said Kerry. "It is our country's defence against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change."
Today's bill sets out a more ambitious target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions than the 17% cut from 2005 levels by 2020 passed by the House of Representatives in June.
The draft would push for a 20% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050.
The targets appear chosen for their resonance with European and Asian leaders.
International negotiators have been looking to America to demonstrate commitment to action on climate change ahead of a meeting at Copenhagen in December cast by the United Nations as a last chance to avoid catastrophic warming.
Otherwise, the bill appeared constructed according to advice of pollsters, which have regularly advised Democrats to cloak climate change action in the language of green job creation and national security.
In a summary released today, Kerry and Boxer said their bill was aimed at "putting America back in control of our energy future, reasserting American economic leadership and competitiveness, protecting our families from pollution, and ensuring our national security".
They began by laying out $10bn (£6.3bn) over 10 years for research into carbon capture technology and for pledging a greater role for nuclear power in America's energy mix.
The summary promised "robust border measures" against states which do not act to cut carbon emissions, presumably China and India.
It also sought to downplay the significance of its emissions cuts, arguing that fewer than 2% of American businesses would be affected.
"The system applies only to the largest polluters in the country - initially around 7,500 facilities that account for nearly three-quarters of US carbon pollution. Over 98% of American businesses, including farmers, are not covered by this programme," the summary said.
Despite such manoeuvring, it is far from clear that the Senate will be able to pivot from its battles over healthcare to climate change and make significant progress before the Copenhagen meeting.
The 800-page draft bill, which is still being worked on, is almost certain to undergo significant changes in the coming weeks with Democrats struggling to build support even from within their own ranks.
"Complex processes are part and parcel of passing major legislation," Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund said. "The most important thing is that the draft be taken for what it is: a starting point that Senators can work with, tailor and pass."
Republicans, who are expected to largely oppose the bill, organised their own counter-press conference today.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 19.27 BST
Democratic leaders took on the epic challenge of getting the US Senate to act on global warming today with the formal unveiling of a bill proposing an ambitious 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
Senate Democrats turned out in strength for today's launch, which was seen at home and abroad as a crucial moment for advancing Barack Obama's agenda.
But the difficulties ahead were underscored by the senators' deep reluctance to use the words 'climate change' — even in the title of the bill, which is called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.
Instead, senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer couched their bill as a chance for America to reclaim its energy independence by reducing oil imports.
"This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future," said Kerry. "It is our country's defence against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change."
Today's bill sets out a more ambitious target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions than the 17% cut from 2005 levels by 2020 passed by the House of Representatives in June.
The draft would push for a 20% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050.
The targets appear chosen for their resonance with European and Asian leaders.
International negotiators have been looking to America to demonstrate commitment to action on climate change ahead of a meeting at Copenhagen in December cast by the United Nations as a last chance to avoid catastrophic warming.
Otherwise, the bill appeared constructed according to advice of pollsters, which have regularly advised Democrats to cloak climate change action in the language of green job creation and national security.
In a summary released today, Kerry and Boxer said their bill was aimed at "putting America back in control of our energy future, reasserting American economic leadership and competitiveness, protecting our families from pollution, and ensuring our national security".
They began by laying out $10bn (£6.3bn) over 10 years for research into carbon capture technology and for pledging a greater role for nuclear power in America's energy mix.
The summary promised "robust border measures" against states which do not act to cut carbon emissions, presumably China and India.
It also sought to downplay the significance of its emissions cuts, arguing that fewer than 2% of American businesses would be affected.
"The system applies only to the largest polluters in the country - initially around 7,500 facilities that account for nearly three-quarters of US carbon pollution. Over 98% of American businesses, including farmers, are not covered by this programme," the summary said.
Despite such manoeuvring, it is far from clear that the Senate will be able to pivot from its battles over healthcare to climate change and make significant progress before the Copenhagen meeting.
The 800-page draft bill, which is still being worked on, is almost certain to undergo significant changes in the coming weeks with Democrats struggling to build support even from within their own ranks.
"Complex processes are part and parcel of passing major legislation," Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund said. "The most important thing is that the draft be taken for what it is: a starting point that Senators can work with, tailor and pass."
Republicans, who are expected to largely oppose the bill, organised their own counter-press conference today.
Greenpeace blocks 2nd Canada oil sands operation
Reuters, Thursday October 1 2009
* Greenpeace blocked conveyors in Suncor mine
* Move aimed at highlighting impact on climate change
* Company expects only minor production impact
* Some protesters arrested away from Suncor site (Adds Greenpeace ends blockade after 10 hours, paragraph 2)
By Scott Haggett and Jeffrey Jones
CALGARY, Alberta, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Environmental activists said on Wednesday they canoed into Suncor Energy Inc's Alberta oil sands operation, blocking equipment in a second protest action in as many weeks aimed at disrupting crude production.
Greenpeace said 23 of its activists entered Canada's second-largest oil sands operation, stopping conveyor belts that carry bitumen from the mine to an upgrading plant that processes the tar-like crude into light oil. They ended the blockade after about 10 hours, the group said later in a press release.
The move, part of a long-running campaign against production from what Greenpeace refers to as "tar sands," is the second this month.
Two weeks ago, protesters chained themselves to equipment at Royal Dutch Shell's oil sands mine as they sought to highlight what they view as excessive greenhouse gas emissions from the region's oil production operations.
"We came here to send a message and we want to make sure that message is heard," said Jessica Wilson, a Greenpeace spokeswoman, who was among the protesters at the Suncor site.
"This is all a push towards (climate talks in) Copenhagen to encourage world leaders to come to a strong climate deal that includes shutting down the tar sands."
PROTESTERS ARRESTED
Wilson and nine other protesters, including Greenpeace Executive Director Bruce Cox, were arrested by Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Wednesday away from the Suncor site, she said in an e-mail message.
The activists who were in the mine were still on the conveyor late in the day, however.
Suncor officials said production at the 300,000 barrel a day operation, located north of the oil sands hub of Fort McMurray, Alberta, was continuing and the company expected the action to have only a minor impact on its operations.
"We have taken a number of steps to protect the safety of not only the activists but our workers at the site," said Sneh Seetal, a spokeswoman for Suncor, Canada's largest energy company. "That includes increasing security, notifying employees and contractors at the site and continuing to extend our offer to discuss oil sands development with Greenpeace and all credible stakeholders."
Greenpeace's Wilson said the group's canoes and kayaks were followed down the Athabasca River by a company motorboat that became stuck on a sandbank, but security had not otherwise interfered with the protesters' landing.
Two weeks ago, Greenpeace activists chained themselves to a a mining shovel and dump truck at Shell's nearby mine, a protest timed to coincide with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington.
Shell temporarily halted production at the mine.
Greenpeace ended that demonstration after about a day, and its activists faced no charges. (Editing by Rob Wilson)
* Greenpeace blocked conveyors in Suncor mine
* Move aimed at highlighting impact on climate change
* Company expects only minor production impact
* Some protesters arrested away from Suncor site (Adds Greenpeace ends blockade after 10 hours, paragraph 2)
By Scott Haggett and Jeffrey Jones
CALGARY, Alberta, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Environmental activists said on Wednesday they canoed into Suncor Energy Inc's Alberta oil sands operation, blocking equipment in a second protest action in as many weeks aimed at disrupting crude production.
Greenpeace said 23 of its activists entered Canada's second-largest oil sands operation, stopping conveyor belts that carry bitumen from the mine to an upgrading plant that processes the tar-like crude into light oil. They ended the blockade after about 10 hours, the group said later in a press release.
The move, part of a long-running campaign against production from what Greenpeace refers to as "tar sands," is the second this month.
Two weeks ago, protesters chained themselves to equipment at Royal Dutch Shell's oil sands mine as they sought to highlight what they view as excessive greenhouse gas emissions from the region's oil production operations.
"We came here to send a message and we want to make sure that message is heard," said Jessica Wilson, a Greenpeace spokeswoman, who was among the protesters at the Suncor site.
"This is all a push towards (climate talks in) Copenhagen to encourage world leaders to come to a strong climate deal that includes shutting down the tar sands."
PROTESTERS ARRESTED
Wilson and nine other protesters, including Greenpeace Executive Director Bruce Cox, were arrested by Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Wednesday away from the Suncor site, she said in an e-mail message.
The activists who were in the mine were still on the conveyor late in the day, however.
Suncor officials said production at the 300,000 barrel a day operation, located north of the oil sands hub of Fort McMurray, Alberta, was continuing and the company expected the action to have only a minor impact on its operations.
"We have taken a number of steps to protect the safety of not only the activists but our workers at the site," said Sneh Seetal, a spokeswoman for Suncor, Canada's largest energy company. "That includes increasing security, notifying employees and contractors at the site and continuing to extend our offer to discuss oil sands development with Greenpeace and all credible stakeholders."
Greenpeace's Wilson said the group's canoes and kayaks were followed down the Athabasca River by a company motorboat that became stuck on a sandbank, but security had not otherwise interfered with the protesters' landing.
Two weeks ago, Greenpeace activists chained themselves to a a mining shovel and dump truck at Shell's nearby mine, a protest timed to coincide with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington.
Shell temporarily halted production at the mine.
Greenpeace ended that demonstration after about a day, and its activists faced no charges. (Editing by Rob Wilson)
Google working on "smart" plug-in hybrid charging
Reuters
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Google is in the early stages of looking at ways to write software that would fully integrate plug-in hybrid vehicles to the power grid, minimize strain on the grid and help utilities manage vehicle charging load.
"We are doing some preliminary work," said Dan Reicher, Google's director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives. "We have begun some work on smart charging of electric vehicles and how you would integrate large number of electric vehicles into the grid successfully."
"We have done a little bit of work on the software side looking at how you would write a computer code to manage this sort of charging infrastructure," he said in an interview on the sidelines of an industry conference.
Google, known for its Internet search engine, in 2007 announced a program to test Toyota Prius and Ford Escape gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles that were converted to rechargeable plug-in hybrids that run mostly on electricity.
One of the experimental technologies that was being tested by the Web search giant allowed parked plug-ins to transfer stored energy back to the electric grid, opening a potential back-up source of power for the system in peak hours.
Google has pushed ahead in addressing climate change issues as a philanthropic effort through its Google.org arm.
Reicher said Google has been testing its fleet of plug-in hybrids "pretty intensely" for the last couple of years.
"One of the great things about plug-ins is this great opportunity for the first time to finally have a storage technology," he said
Reicher said the company is trying to figure out how to manage the impact of having millions of future electric vehicle owners plugging in their vehicles at the same time.
"We got to be careful how we manage these things," he said. "On a hot day in July when 5 million Californians come home, you don't want them all plugging in at the same moment."
Reicher laid out a scenario where power utilities, during a time of high demand, could turn on or off the charging of electric vehicles. The owner of these vehicles, who have agreed to such an arrangement, would get a credit from the utility in turn.
"The grid operators may well be indifferent to either putting 500 megawatts of new generation on or taking 500 megawatts off," he said. "The beauty of plug-in vehicles is that with the right software behind them, you could manage their charging."
Apart from plug-in hybrids, Google also is working on other green technologies such as developing its own new mirror technology that could reduce the cost of building solar thermal plants by a quarter or more, and looking at gas turbines that would run on solar power rather than natural gas.
The often-quirky company also said in late 2007 that it would invest in companies and do research of its own to produce affordable renewable energy -- at a price less than burning coal -- within a few years, casting the move as a philanthropic effort to address climate change.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Google is in the early stages of looking at ways to write software that would fully integrate plug-in hybrid vehicles to the power grid, minimize strain on the grid and help utilities manage vehicle charging load.
"We are doing some preliminary work," said Dan Reicher, Google's director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives. "We have begun some work on smart charging of electric vehicles and how you would integrate large number of electric vehicles into the grid successfully."
"We have done a little bit of work on the software side looking at how you would write a computer code to manage this sort of charging infrastructure," he said in an interview on the sidelines of an industry conference.
Google, known for its Internet search engine, in 2007 announced a program to test Toyota Prius and Ford Escape gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles that were converted to rechargeable plug-in hybrids that run mostly on electricity.
One of the experimental technologies that was being tested by the Web search giant allowed parked plug-ins to transfer stored energy back to the electric grid, opening a potential back-up source of power for the system in peak hours.
Google has pushed ahead in addressing climate change issues as a philanthropic effort through its Google.org arm.
Reicher said Google has been testing its fleet of plug-in hybrids "pretty intensely" for the last couple of years.
"One of the great things about plug-ins is this great opportunity for the first time to finally have a storage technology," he said
Reicher said the company is trying to figure out how to manage the impact of having millions of future electric vehicle owners plugging in their vehicles at the same time.
"We got to be careful how we manage these things," he said. "On a hot day in July when 5 million Californians come home, you don't want them all plugging in at the same moment."
Reicher laid out a scenario where power utilities, during a time of high demand, could turn on or off the charging of electric vehicles. The owner of these vehicles, who have agreed to such an arrangement, would get a credit from the utility in turn.
"The grid operators may well be indifferent to either putting 500 megawatts of new generation on or taking 500 megawatts off," he said. "The beauty of plug-in vehicles is that with the right software behind them, you could manage their charging."
Apart from plug-in hybrids, Google also is working on other green technologies such as developing its own new mirror technology that could reduce the cost of building solar thermal plants by a quarter or more, and looking at gas turbines that would run on solar power rather than natural gas.
The often-quirky company also said in late 2007 that it would invest in companies and do research of its own to produce affordable renewable energy -- at a price less than burning coal -- within a few years, casting the move as a philanthropic effort to address climate change.
International Power buys wind farm
Date: Wednesday 30 Sep 2009
LONDON (ShareCast) - International Power is to buy AIM PowerGen Corporation, one of Canada's largest independent wind farm developers, from Renewable Energy Generation Limited for an enterprise value of C$189m( £109m), with a total cash consideration of C$119m million (£69m). The AIM portfolio is concentrated in Ontario, with 40MW of wind farms in operation and 40MW under construction (the Harrow project) which is on plan for completion in the first half of 2010. Philip Cox, CEO of International Power, said, "This acquisition adds a high-quality wind portfolio of operational and development assets, with an experienced development team, to our North American business. It represents an excellent opportunity for International Power to establish a platform for future growth in the attractive Canadian renewables sector."
LONDON (ShareCast) - International Power is to buy AIM PowerGen Corporation, one of Canada's largest independent wind farm developers, from Renewable Energy Generation Limited for an enterprise value of C$189m( £109m), with a total cash consideration of C$119m million (£69m). The AIM portfolio is concentrated in Ontario, with 40MW of wind farms in operation and 40MW under construction (the Harrow project) which is on plan for completion in the first half of 2010. Philip Cox, CEO of International Power, said, "This acquisition adds a high-quality wind portfolio of operational and development assets, with an experienced development team, to our North American business. It represents an excellent opportunity for International Power to establish a platform for future growth in the attractive Canadian renewables sector."
Sting (and other celebrities of a certain age) send out a rainforest SOS
Why is it that campaigns such as The Prince's Rainforest Project can't seem to attract anyone younger with global appeal?
Save the rainforests. Most sane people would agree it makes sense. But how do we go about deterring those who still make a living firing up chainsaws and carving their way through some of the most diverse, yet endangered habitats on the planet?
The Prince's Rainforest Project, the charity set up by Prince Charles two years ago to halt the destruction of the world's rainforests, thinks the best way is to put extreme pressure on the politicians meeting in Copenhagen for the COP15 climate negotiations in December so they work out a way to make rainforests more valuable alive than dead. This week, the project is launching a campaign called Rainforest SOS to encourage as many people as possible around the world to text their name and a short message in support of a deal.
And what do you get when you combine rainforests with "sending out an SOS"? Yes, Sting. The rainforest campaigner and world-famous musician is fronting the campaign with a short video message urging us to send our views on the matter to politicians in the form of a quick text. (The days of delivering ream after ream of signatures to the doorstep of 10 Downing Street don't exactly chime with our environmentally conscious times, not least for a cause which is urging us not to cut down trees.)
As you do with these sorts of things, you call on your mates for support. So we have stars of a certain age and demographic lending their names to the prince's highly commendable cause: Harrison Ford, Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry, David Attenborough, Robin Williams, Pelé, Richard Branson, Daniel Craig, Rod Stewart, Billy Connolly, Vivienne Westwood, Olivia Newton-John, Richard E Grant and, of course, Sting.
And, yes, as is also standard with these sorts of things, we have a host of corporate sponsors, including Tesco. (Would that be the same Tesco accused, along with other supermarkets, in a recent Greenpeace report of selling meat linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest?)
Let's hope the campaign does the job of forcing deforestation up the agenda at the make-or-break climate conference. Is it really as easy as sending a text, though? I suppose – as Tesco likes us to say – every little helps.
But it would have been nice to see a campaign with a more youthful edge to it. Given that the vast majority of text messages are sent by people aged under 35, can't anyone have been found younger than Daniel Craig – aged 41 – to lend their name and fame to the campaign? And while Sting has a long track record when it comes to rainforest campaigning, there's little point denying that he and his wife Trudie Styler have a reputation for rubbing some people up the wrong way when it comes to proselytising their own brand of environmentalism. (For proof, see Marina Hyde's memorable exchange with Trudie Styler earlier this year.)
One wonders similar thoughts, too, when viewing the trailer for the music video (free to download tomorrow) being used to front the "TckTckTck" climate change campaign organised by a broad coalition of NGOs, such as WWF, Greenpeace, 350.org, Amnesty and Oxfam. Midnight Oil's 1987 hit, Beds are Burning, has been rerecorded with new climate change-orientated lyrics (it was originally a protest song about Aboriginal land rights in Australia) by a Band Aid-style collection of musicians from around the world. But, again, let's look at who turned up for the recording session: Duran Duran, The Scorpions, Bob Geldof, Marion Cotillard and Youssou N'dour are, perhaps, the better known of the 55 acts taking part. (Midnight Oil's Peter Garrett says he supports the project but says, as Australia's environment minister, he won't take part.)
Why is it that these campaigns can't seem to attract anyone younger with global appeal? If you're heading up a campaign with youthful pleas to "text in" or "download now", then surely you need to use the services of artists who are bagging number ones today rather than a generation ago? OK, maybe I'm being a bit harsh – the record is also graced by the presence of Lily Allen, Fergie, Klaxons, and Mark Ronson – but why aren't they making more of these names in the publicity rather than, say, the Scorpions?
Save the rainforests. Most sane people would agree it makes sense. But how do we go about deterring those who still make a living firing up chainsaws and carving their way through some of the most diverse, yet endangered habitats on the planet?
The Prince's Rainforest Project, the charity set up by Prince Charles two years ago to halt the destruction of the world's rainforests, thinks the best way is to put extreme pressure on the politicians meeting in Copenhagen for the COP15 climate negotiations in December so they work out a way to make rainforests more valuable alive than dead. This week, the project is launching a campaign called Rainforest SOS to encourage as many people as possible around the world to text their name and a short message in support of a deal.
And what do you get when you combine rainforests with "sending out an SOS"? Yes, Sting. The rainforest campaigner and world-famous musician is fronting the campaign with a short video message urging us to send our views on the matter to politicians in the form of a quick text. (The days of delivering ream after ream of signatures to the doorstep of 10 Downing Street don't exactly chime with our environmentally conscious times, not least for a cause which is urging us not to cut down trees.)
As you do with these sorts of things, you call on your mates for support. So we have stars of a certain age and demographic lending their names to the prince's highly commendable cause: Harrison Ford, Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry, David Attenborough, Robin Williams, Pelé, Richard Branson, Daniel Craig, Rod Stewart, Billy Connolly, Vivienne Westwood, Olivia Newton-John, Richard E Grant and, of course, Sting.
And, yes, as is also standard with these sorts of things, we have a host of corporate sponsors, including Tesco. (Would that be the same Tesco accused, along with other supermarkets, in a recent Greenpeace report of selling meat linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest?)
Let's hope the campaign does the job of forcing deforestation up the agenda at the make-or-break climate conference. Is it really as easy as sending a text, though? I suppose – as Tesco likes us to say – every little helps.
But it would have been nice to see a campaign with a more youthful edge to it. Given that the vast majority of text messages are sent by people aged under 35, can't anyone have been found younger than Daniel Craig – aged 41 – to lend their name and fame to the campaign? And while Sting has a long track record when it comes to rainforest campaigning, there's little point denying that he and his wife Trudie Styler have a reputation for rubbing some people up the wrong way when it comes to proselytising their own brand of environmentalism. (For proof, see Marina Hyde's memorable exchange with Trudie Styler earlier this year.)
One wonders similar thoughts, too, when viewing the trailer for the music video (free to download tomorrow) being used to front the "TckTckTck" climate change campaign organised by a broad coalition of NGOs, such as WWF, Greenpeace, 350.org, Amnesty and Oxfam. Midnight Oil's 1987 hit, Beds are Burning, has been rerecorded with new climate change-orientated lyrics (it was originally a protest song about Aboriginal land rights in Australia) by a Band Aid-style collection of musicians from around the world. But, again, let's look at who turned up for the recording session: Duran Duran, The Scorpions, Bob Geldof, Marion Cotillard and Youssou N'dour are, perhaps, the better known of the 55 acts taking part. (Midnight Oil's Peter Garrett says he supports the project but says, as Australia's environment minister, he won't take part.)
Why is it that these campaigns can't seem to attract anyone younger with global appeal? If you're heading up a campaign with youthful pleas to "text in" or "download now", then surely you need to use the services of artists who are bagging number ones today rather than a generation ago? OK, maybe I'm being a bit harsh – the record is also graced by the presence of Lily Allen, Fergie, Klaxons, and Mark Ronson – but why aren't they making more of these names in the publicity rather than, say, the Scorpions?
Call for research into pesticides implicated in deaths of honeybees
The Co-operative wants research into impact of neonicotinoid group of pesticides as UK premieres film Vanishing of the Bees
Alison Benjamin
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 October 2009 00.05 BST
Campaigners today called on the government to commission research into pesticides that have been implicated in the death of billions of honeybees worldwide.
The Co-Operative wants the government to fund research into the impact of the neonicotinoid group of pesticides which the company has prohibited on its farms until it is proved they do not harm honeybees.
The call comes on the day of the UK premiere of the film Vanishing of the Bees, which explores the mysterious disappearance of honeybee colonies which are a vital pollinator of crops.
A number of culprits including parasitic mites, viruses, lack of nutritious food sources and pesticides have been blamed for the dramatic declines in honeybees. In the US more than a third have been wiped out each year since 2006/07, and close on a third perished in the UK last year.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-Op, said: "Neonicotinoids has been linked to honeybee declines elsewhere in Europe and that is why they have been restricted in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia. However, very little independent research into their effects on bees has been carried out in the UK."
Earlier this year the government along with other funders, including the Wellcome Trust, put aside £10m to be used on pollinator research, but none of the money has been directed at the effects of pesticides. In June an influential committee of MPs warned that government risked diluting research into the problem.
"We want the government to carry out a systematic review of the impact these pesticides are having on the wellbeing of honeybees," said Monaghan.
Until this happens, the Co-Op has awarded £100,000 of its own money to a UK university, that it is unwilling to name, to carry out an independent review.
Wildlife charity Buglife, together with the Soil Association and the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, has called for a temporary ban on neonicotinoids and for a review to assess their harm to pollinators following its recent review of current research which showed that the pesticides may damage populations of bees.
But the government insists there is no evidence that the pesticides "pose an unacceptable risk to the health of bees". A Defra spokesman said that a key part of the authorisation process for pesticides was an assessment of risks to foraging bees and bee hives. Studies conducted in the field monitor the impacts on honeybees confined to tents and exposed to flowering crops of maize, oilseed rape and sunflowers grown from seed treated with pesticides in excess of the UK approved application rate. No significant differences in bee behaviour or mortality were reported in treated and untreated crops, he said.
Matt Shardlow, chief executive of Buglife , said its research questioned the approval process. New rules to limit the use of pesticides were last week passed by EU ministers, which could remove up to a fifth of currently approved pesticides from the market. The UK government, which voted against the regulation, said it is unlikely these will include neonicotinoids.
Alison Benjamin
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 October 2009 00.05 BST
Campaigners today called on the government to commission research into pesticides that have been implicated in the death of billions of honeybees worldwide.
The Co-Operative wants the government to fund research into the impact of the neonicotinoid group of pesticides which the company has prohibited on its farms until it is proved they do not harm honeybees.
The call comes on the day of the UK premiere of the film Vanishing of the Bees, which explores the mysterious disappearance of honeybee colonies which are a vital pollinator of crops.
A number of culprits including parasitic mites, viruses, lack of nutritious food sources and pesticides have been blamed for the dramatic declines in honeybees. In the US more than a third have been wiped out each year since 2006/07, and close on a third perished in the UK last year.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-Op, said: "Neonicotinoids has been linked to honeybee declines elsewhere in Europe and that is why they have been restricted in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia. However, very little independent research into their effects on bees has been carried out in the UK."
Earlier this year the government along with other funders, including the Wellcome Trust, put aside £10m to be used on pollinator research, but none of the money has been directed at the effects of pesticides. In June an influential committee of MPs warned that government risked diluting research into the problem.
"We want the government to carry out a systematic review of the impact these pesticides are having on the wellbeing of honeybees," said Monaghan.
Until this happens, the Co-Op has awarded £100,000 of its own money to a UK university, that it is unwilling to name, to carry out an independent review.
Wildlife charity Buglife, together with the Soil Association and the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, has called for a temporary ban on neonicotinoids and for a review to assess their harm to pollinators following its recent review of current research which showed that the pesticides may damage populations of bees.
But the government insists there is no evidence that the pesticides "pose an unacceptable risk to the health of bees". A Defra spokesman said that a key part of the authorisation process for pesticides was an assessment of risks to foraging bees and bee hives. Studies conducted in the field monitor the impacts on honeybees confined to tents and exposed to flowering crops of maize, oilseed rape and sunflowers grown from seed treated with pesticides in excess of the UK approved application rate. No significant differences in bee behaviour or mortality were reported in treated and untreated crops, he said.
Matt Shardlow, chief executive of Buglife , said its research questioned the approval process. New rules to limit the use of pesticides were last week passed by EU ministers, which could remove up to a fifth of currently approved pesticides from the market. The UK government, which voted against the regulation, said it is unlikely these will include neonicotinoids.
More green investment, less spending on polluting practices
Green space, health and economic development are proved to be linked – this is where the money should be spent
John Vidal
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 September 2009
Switching public spending from "grey" projects such as roads and airports, to "green" schemes such as parks, tree planting and allotments, would not just save the government billions of pounds, improve health, and cut climate emissions, but it would create jobs and make British cities more attractive.
The analysis comes from two groups of government advisers, Natural England and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and is supported by evidence from other countries. It shows that where cuts are made in those areas that add to pollution, waste and ill health, and money is invested instead in projects that save energy, improve health and reduce waste, the benefits are seen quickly.
For instance, the £10.2bn budgeted by central government for road building in Britain this year will increase traffic and emissions and leave the public purse to clean up the pollution and waste. Just half of that money would pay for a new park in every local authority. Equally, the £1.28bn set aside for widening the M25 by a single lane would benefit drivers by perhaps a few seconds a journey, but it would buy and maintain more than 3m new street trees.
Councils have bid more than £4bn this year for local road schemes, most of which will have marginal social benefits. That money could be invested in commuity gardens and urban farming, which have been shown to improve health and encourage exercise.
There is now a proven relationship between green space, health and economic development. Yet local authorities spend less than £20 a year per person on trees, parks, gardens, allotments, woodlands, rivers and waterways, which together provide clean air and water and enrich their citizens' quality of life.
The NHS is responsible for more than 18m tonnes of CO2 a year. If it invests in energy saving, it will not just save itself great sums in future as costs inevitably rise, it will help to avoid a catastrophe as diseases spread further and droughts, floods and heatwaves increase. Every year that addressing climate change is delayed, the public costs rise.
Government figures show that road traffic has increased 25% in the past 15 years, at the same time as obesity and public health costs have soared. Research also shows that where people have direct contact with the environment via animals, plants or landscapes, they more likely to be mentally and physically healthy. Hospital patients with views of trees rather than of brick walls stay in hospitals for far less time.
• Are you a worker in this sector, or have you recently used its services? Please let us know your stories and views by posting a comment below. A selection will be published in a second supplement next week
John Vidal
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 September 2009
Switching public spending from "grey" projects such as roads and airports, to "green" schemes such as parks, tree planting and allotments, would not just save the government billions of pounds, improve health, and cut climate emissions, but it would create jobs and make British cities more attractive.
The analysis comes from two groups of government advisers, Natural England and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, and is supported by evidence from other countries. It shows that where cuts are made in those areas that add to pollution, waste and ill health, and money is invested instead in projects that save energy, improve health and reduce waste, the benefits are seen quickly.
For instance, the £10.2bn budgeted by central government for road building in Britain this year will increase traffic and emissions and leave the public purse to clean up the pollution and waste. Just half of that money would pay for a new park in every local authority. Equally, the £1.28bn set aside for widening the M25 by a single lane would benefit drivers by perhaps a few seconds a journey, but it would buy and maintain more than 3m new street trees.
Councils have bid more than £4bn this year for local road schemes, most of which will have marginal social benefits. That money could be invested in commuity gardens and urban farming, which have been shown to improve health and encourage exercise.
There is now a proven relationship between green space, health and economic development. Yet local authorities spend less than £20 a year per person on trees, parks, gardens, allotments, woodlands, rivers and waterways, which together provide clean air and water and enrich their citizens' quality of life.
The NHS is responsible for more than 18m tonnes of CO2 a year. If it invests in energy saving, it will not just save itself great sums in future as costs inevitably rise, it will help to avoid a catastrophe as diseases spread further and droughts, floods and heatwaves increase. Every year that addressing climate change is delayed, the public costs rise.
Government figures show that road traffic has increased 25% in the past 15 years, at the same time as obesity and public health costs have soared. Research also shows that where people have direct contact with the environment via animals, plants or landscapes, they more likely to be mentally and physically healthy. Hospital patients with views of trees rather than of brick walls stay in hospitals for far less time.
• Are you a worker in this sector, or have you recently used its services? Please let us know your stories and views by posting a comment below. A selection will be published in a second supplement next week
New York Times columnist thinks Red China is now Green China. Oh really?
Thomas Friedman may have been too busy sipping tea with technocrats than beathing polluted air in Shanxi and Beijing
How green is China? Seems an odd thing to ask on the eve of a huge anniversary of red communist power. But, according to Thomas Friedman, the matter is settled.
The author and New York Times columnist argued this week that the most important global development of the past 18 months was that Red China became Green China.
Now I read Friedman's columns and most of the time I am struck with admiration and envy at his ability to provoke and convince. But I suspect he has spent too long sipping tea with Dalian's technocrats and not enough time breathing the air in Shanxi, Henan and Beijing.
The politburo's decision to promote clean energy, he argues, is the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik, which convinced the United States that it was falling behind in missile technology.
China's renewable energy promotion policies are impressive and – if developed further – could transform the balance of power in the world. Friedman is absolutely right to prod the US to respond. But colour-coding such a big and diverse country is not so simple.
Industrially, China is predominantly black and will remain so for decades. Coal consumption has grown as fast as renewable energy. Despite a huge investment in wind, solar and hydro, China continues to depend on coal for 70% of its power. Despite gains in the efficiency of thermal power stations, the country's carbon emissions are the highest in the world and will probably double again in the next 20 years.
Environmentally, China has never been greyer. In the current surge of urbanisation and dam building, billions of tonnes of concrete have been poured onto farm fields and into rivers. A surge in car ownership has added to the haze that obscures the skies in most cities for much of the year.
And politically, China remains uncompromisingly red in ways that will be all too evident tomorrow when PLA tanks and missiles parade past Mao's portrait in Tiananmen Square for the 60th anniversary of Communist party rule.
Yes, there will be splashes of green and not just because of the military uniforms. Twice as many trees are being planted in China as the rest of the world put together. But the same country is also importing far more illegally logged timber than anywhere else.
All of which is to say, Beijing is doing great things for the environment. But it also continues to join wealthy nations in doing even more damage.
Perhaps a "Green China" can emerge from the haze to lead a low-carbon revolution. I certainly hope so. But for the moment, the country is too big, too fast-changing and too uncertain to paint into a corner, or a colour.
How green is China? Seems an odd thing to ask on the eve of a huge anniversary of red communist power. But, according to Thomas Friedman, the matter is settled.
The author and New York Times columnist argued this week that the most important global development of the past 18 months was that Red China became Green China.
Now I read Friedman's columns and most of the time I am struck with admiration and envy at his ability to provoke and convince. But I suspect he has spent too long sipping tea with Dalian's technocrats and not enough time breathing the air in Shanxi, Henan and Beijing.
The politburo's decision to promote clean energy, he argues, is the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet Union's 1957 launch of Sputnik, which convinced the United States that it was falling behind in missile technology.
China's renewable energy promotion policies are impressive and – if developed further – could transform the balance of power in the world. Friedman is absolutely right to prod the US to respond. But colour-coding such a big and diverse country is not so simple.
Industrially, China is predominantly black and will remain so for decades. Coal consumption has grown as fast as renewable energy. Despite a huge investment in wind, solar and hydro, China continues to depend on coal for 70% of its power. Despite gains in the efficiency of thermal power stations, the country's carbon emissions are the highest in the world and will probably double again in the next 20 years.
Environmentally, China has never been greyer. In the current surge of urbanisation and dam building, billions of tonnes of concrete have been poured onto farm fields and into rivers. A surge in car ownership has added to the haze that obscures the skies in most cities for much of the year.
And politically, China remains uncompromisingly red in ways that will be all too evident tomorrow when PLA tanks and missiles parade past Mao's portrait in Tiananmen Square for the 60th anniversary of Communist party rule.
Yes, there will be splashes of green and not just because of the military uniforms. Twice as many trees are being planted in China as the rest of the world put together. But the same country is also importing far more illegally logged timber than anywhere else.
All of which is to say, Beijing is doing great things for the environment. But it also continues to join wealthy nations in doing even more damage.
Perhaps a "Green China" can emerge from the haze to lead a low-carbon revolution. I certainly hope so. But for the moment, the country is too big, too fast-changing and too uncertain to paint into a corner, or a colour.
Water worries threaten U.S. push for natural gas
Reuters, Thursday October 1 2009
By Jon Hurdle
PAVILLION, Wyoming, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Louis Meeks, a burly 59-year-old alfalfa farmer, fills a metal trough with water from his well and watches an oily sheen form on the surface which gives off a faint odor of paint.
He points to small bubbles that appear in the water, and a thin ring of foam around the edge.
Meeks is convinced that energy companies drilling for natural gas in this central Wyoming farming community have poisoned his water and ruined his health.
A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency suggests he just might have a case -- and that the multi-billion dollar industry may have a problem on its hands. EPA tests found his well contained what it termed 14 "contaminants of concern."
It tested 39 wells in the Pavillion area this year, and said in August that 11 were contaminated. The agency did not identify the cause but said gas drilling was a possibility.
What's happened to the water supply in Pavillion could have repercussions for the nation's energy policies. As a clean-burning fuel with giant reserves in the United States, natural gas is central to plans for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But aggressive development is drawing new scrutiny from residents who live near gas fields, even in energy-intensive states such as Wyoming, where one in five jobs are linked to oil and gas which contributed $15 billion the state economy in 2007.
People living near gas drilling facilities in states including Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming have complained that their water has turned cloudy, foul-smelling, or even black as a result of chemicals used in a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."
The industry contends drilling chemicals are heavily diluted and injected safely into gas reservoirs thousands of feet beneath aquifers, so they will never seep into drinking water supplies.
"There has never been a documented case of fracking that's contaminated wells or groundwater," said Randy Teeuwen, a spokesman for EnCana Corp, Canada's second-largest energy company, which operates 248 wells in the Pavillion and nearby Muddy Ridge fields.
"We know they don't have the science to prove what they say," Teeuwen said of those who criticize fracking.
HARD TO PROVE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Critics say their kids have got sick, their animals have died, and their water has in some cases become flammable because of methane escaped into aquifers from gas wells.
But they have been unable to prove their case because drilling companies are not required to disclose exactly what chemicals they use, thanks to an exemption to a federal clean water law granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005.
The EPA, in its first tests in response to concerns over gas drilling and water quality, has not positively identified the source of the Pavillion contamination but it did name gas drilling as a possible cause. The agency is continuing its tests and expects to issue a report in spring 2010.
Luke Chavez, an EPA scientist leading the investigation, said he will now seek to determine the quantities of a range of contaminants and their health effects.
"We're taking a shotgun approach," he said.
In Pavillion, residents are on edge. Meeks' neighbor Donnet Baughman said she does not mind companies drilling for gas in her backyard, as long as it doesn't poison her water.
"We are not against the oil and gas industry at all," she said during an interview in her living room. "We just want them to do it right."
Baughman's water was clean, according to the EPA tests, but she is uneasy with the findings since she has a gas separation tank about 50 yards (metres) from her house, and some of her neighbors, including Meeks, were found to have bad water.
Three wells in the EPA's sample contained 2-BE, a potentially carcinogenic substance that's used as a lubricant in drilling, and in some household cleaning products.
GAS LIES WELL BELOW AQUIFERS
Stung by grassroots complaints, and by a bill in Congress that would require disclosure of fracking chemicals, the industry says it is using the latest technology to keep fracking safe.
At the Frenchie Draw drilling rig 60 miles (100 km) east of Pavillion, EnCana workers used automated machinery to join 30-foot (9-metre) lengths of pipe and insert them into a new well, which extends 11,135 feet (3,394 metres) below ground.
The steel pipe can withstand pressure up to 9,800 pounds per square inch. It is encased in concrete to 2,500 feet (762 metres), well below aquifers, said John Schmidt, an EnCana field leader.
The pipes allow EnCana to inject a fracking fluid of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into the gas-bearing rock.
At specific depths identified by geologists, the pipe is perforated with small holes by controlled explosions. The fracking mixture then breaks up the rock, allowing natural gas to rush to the surface.
About 70 percent of the water mixture remains underground, while the rest is pumped back up and later re-injected into 10,000-foot (3,000-metre) disposal wells, Schmidt said. In 2010, EnCana plans to start treating and reusing the water.
Despite the industry's precautions, spills of fracking fluids occur.
On Sept. 25, Pennsylvania regulators ordered Cabot Oil & Gas Corp to halt fracking operations in one county after it admitted three recent spills of fracking fluid.
TO STAY OR TO GO?
In Pavillion, Meeks said he suffers pulmonary hypertension and neuropathy in his legs. "They have ruined my life," he said. "I would like to get out of here."
He said EnCana stopped supplying him free drinking water this month, after he publicly opposed fracking practices.
"They are trying to punish me," Meeks said. "I'm a thorn in their side."
Half a mile from Meeks' house, across a valley dotted with gas wells, separation tanks and compressor stations, Rhonda Locker, 48, said she stopped drinking her water after it "went bad" in the early 1990s.
She started drinking it again about five years ago after installing a reverse-osmosis filter, but within six months started having seizures, bone pain, and cognitive problems.
Frustrated by not knowing what was causing her illness, she tried again in early September to drink the water, and experienced the same symptoms.
"It's like you have the flu every day," Locker said.
Locker, who has two gas wells within 500 feet of her house, said she has been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, which her doctors have failed to pin on any particular cause, but which she blames on a history of drinking the water.
Locker also suspects water contamination is to blame for her 26-year-old daughter's termination of three pregnancies, and for liver disease in her 24-year-old son.
In a shed outside, Locker's husband Jeff, a 56-year-old farmer, removed the filter from the reverse-osmosis mechanism that cleans their water sufficiently for bathing, revealing a cylinder turned jet black by the incoming well water. Like many of their neighbors, they drink only bottled water.
The Lockers considered selling up but decided they couldn't bear to leave their home of 25 years. They fear the value of their home has been undermined by water contamination, a concern echoed by Meeks, who said he had been informed by a realtor that his home is now worthless.
A sense of helplessness is leading some Pavillion residents to consider legal action against EnCana, said John Fenton, 37.
"We are not the kind of people who sue people," said Fenton, whose water is also contaminated. "For the first time in my life, I'm giving some serious thought to it."
But many are restrained by the knowledge that energy is the lifeblood of Wyoming, said Deb Thomas of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, an environmental group that has been an outspoken critic of gas drilling.
"It's the only economy our state has," she said. "Nobody wants to kill the golden calf."
By Jon Hurdle
PAVILLION, Wyoming, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Louis Meeks, a burly 59-year-old alfalfa farmer, fills a metal trough with water from his well and watches an oily sheen form on the surface which gives off a faint odor of paint.
He points to small bubbles that appear in the water, and a thin ring of foam around the edge.
Meeks is convinced that energy companies drilling for natural gas in this central Wyoming farming community have poisoned his water and ruined his health.
A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency suggests he just might have a case -- and that the multi-billion dollar industry may have a problem on its hands. EPA tests found his well contained what it termed 14 "contaminants of concern."
It tested 39 wells in the Pavillion area this year, and said in August that 11 were contaminated. The agency did not identify the cause but said gas drilling was a possibility.
What's happened to the water supply in Pavillion could have repercussions for the nation's energy policies. As a clean-burning fuel with giant reserves in the United States, natural gas is central to plans for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But aggressive development is drawing new scrutiny from residents who live near gas fields, even in energy-intensive states such as Wyoming, where one in five jobs are linked to oil and gas which contributed $15 billion the state economy in 2007.
People living near gas drilling facilities in states including Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming have complained that their water has turned cloudy, foul-smelling, or even black as a result of chemicals used in a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."
The industry contends drilling chemicals are heavily diluted and injected safely into gas reservoirs thousands of feet beneath aquifers, so they will never seep into drinking water supplies.
"There has never been a documented case of fracking that's contaminated wells or groundwater," said Randy Teeuwen, a spokesman for EnCana Corp, Canada's second-largest energy company, which operates 248 wells in the Pavillion and nearby Muddy Ridge fields.
"We know they don't have the science to prove what they say," Teeuwen said of those who criticize fracking.
HARD TO PROVE SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Critics say their kids have got sick, their animals have died, and their water has in some cases become flammable because of methane escaped into aquifers from gas wells.
But they have been unable to prove their case because drilling companies are not required to disclose exactly what chemicals they use, thanks to an exemption to a federal clean water law granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005.
The EPA, in its first tests in response to concerns over gas drilling and water quality, has not positively identified the source of the Pavillion contamination but it did name gas drilling as a possible cause. The agency is continuing its tests and expects to issue a report in spring 2010.
Luke Chavez, an EPA scientist leading the investigation, said he will now seek to determine the quantities of a range of contaminants and their health effects.
"We're taking a shotgun approach," he said.
In Pavillion, residents are on edge. Meeks' neighbor Donnet Baughman said she does not mind companies drilling for gas in her backyard, as long as it doesn't poison her water.
"We are not against the oil and gas industry at all," she said during an interview in her living room. "We just want them to do it right."
Baughman's water was clean, according to the EPA tests, but she is uneasy with the findings since she has a gas separation tank about 50 yards (metres) from her house, and some of her neighbors, including Meeks, were found to have bad water.
Three wells in the EPA's sample contained 2-BE, a potentially carcinogenic substance that's used as a lubricant in drilling, and in some household cleaning products.
GAS LIES WELL BELOW AQUIFERS
Stung by grassroots complaints, and by a bill in Congress that would require disclosure of fracking chemicals, the industry says it is using the latest technology to keep fracking safe.
At the Frenchie Draw drilling rig 60 miles (100 km) east of Pavillion, EnCana workers used automated machinery to join 30-foot (9-metre) lengths of pipe and insert them into a new well, which extends 11,135 feet (3,394 metres) below ground.
The steel pipe can withstand pressure up to 9,800 pounds per square inch. It is encased in concrete to 2,500 feet (762 metres), well below aquifers, said John Schmidt, an EnCana field leader.
The pipes allow EnCana to inject a fracking fluid of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into the gas-bearing rock.
At specific depths identified by geologists, the pipe is perforated with small holes by controlled explosions. The fracking mixture then breaks up the rock, allowing natural gas to rush to the surface.
About 70 percent of the water mixture remains underground, while the rest is pumped back up and later re-injected into 10,000-foot (3,000-metre) disposal wells, Schmidt said. In 2010, EnCana plans to start treating and reusing the water.
Despite the industry's precautions, spills of fracking fluids occur.
On Sept. 25, Pennsylvania regulators ordered Cabot Oil & Gas Corp to halt fracking operations in one county after it admitted three recent spills of fracking fluid.
TO STAY OR TO GO?
In Pavillion, Meeks said he suffers pulmonary hypertension and neuropathy in his legs. "They have ruined my life," he said. "I would like to get out of here."
He said EnCana stopped supplying him free drinking water this month, after he publicly opposed fracking practices.
"They are trying to punish me," Meeks said. "I'm a thorn in their side."
Half a mile from Meeks' house, across a valley dotted with gas wells, separation tanks and compressor stations, Rhonda Locker, 48, said she stopped drinking her water after it "went bad" in the early 1990s.
She started drinking it again about five years ago after installing a reverse-osmosis filter, but within six months started having seizures, bone pain, and cognitive problems.
Frustrated by not knowing what was causing her illness, she tried again in early September to drink the water, and experienced the same symptoms.
"It's like you have the flu every day," Locker said.
Locker, who has two gas wells within 500 feet of her house, said she has been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, which her doctors have failed to pin on any particular cause, but which she blames on a history of drinking the water.
Locker also suspects water contamination is to blame for her 26-year-old daughter's termination of three pregnancies, and for liver disease in her 24-year-old son.
In a shed outside, Locker's husband Jeff, a 56-year-old farmer, removed the filter from the reverse-osmosis mechanism that cleans their water sufficiently for bathing, revealing a cylinder turned jet black by the incoming well water. Like many of their neighbors, they drink only bottled water.
The Lockers considered selling up but decided they couldn't bear to leave their home of 25 years. They fear the value of their home has been undermined by water contamination, a concern echoed by Meeks, who said he had been informed by a realtor that his home is now worthless.
A sense of helplessness is leading some Pavillion residents to consider legal action against EnCana, said John Fenton, 37.
"We are not the kind of people who sue people," said Fenton, whose water is also contaminated. "For the first time in my life, I'm giving some serious thought to it."
But many are restrained by the knowledge that energy is the lifeblood of Wyoming, said Deb Thomas of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, an environmental group that has been an outspoken critic of gas drilling.
"It's the only economy our state has," she said. "Nobody wants to kill the golden calf."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
