Pox on Fox

Hey Mr. Green,
My whole family had embraced the concept of compact fluorescent bulbs (because they are so efficient), but a negative report from Fox News about their mercury hazards has us a little confused. Can you respond to our concern? --Carl in Center Moriches, New York



Hey Carl,
Thank you for calling my attention to this hatchet job, which I never would have noticed because I try to avoid the right-wing contrivances that Fox peddles as fair and balanced.

The people at Fox News are either brain-damaged from huffing mercury (they do seem to have a fondness for the highly toxic) or they have unscrupulously cherry-picked their facts. (In their sniping about the rules to replace incandescents with compact fluorescents [CFLs] "either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia," it's surprising that they overlooked the bulb-replacement programs in Cuba and Venezuela. That would've given them a fine opportunity to present compact fluorescent bulbs as part of a communist takeover.)

This classic example of enviro-bashing is full of flaws. First, the Fox writer trots out one report of one environmental bureaucrat's overreaction to a bulb breakage to make it sound like a busted CFL will turn a house into a Superfund site. The fact is, CFLs do contain mercury, but nowhere near enough to provoke panic or evacuation. If you break a bulb, you can do the cleanup yourself, without renting a moon suit or contacting authorities.

The EPA advises the following treatment:

Open a window and leave the room for at least 15 minutes (to let the mercury vaporize).
Remove all materials (i.e., the pieces of the broken bulb) without using a vacuum cleaner. You don't want even a small amount of mercury lurking in your vacuum. To do so:
Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available. (Never touch the bulb pieces with your bare hands.)
Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard (you don't want the stuff to get on your broom or dustpan either).
Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe. Sticky tape, such as duct tape (yet another use for the versatile material!), can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it. If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available). If your state doesn't allow this, consult the local hazardous-waste authority for safe-recycling information. Some hardware stores will also accept old bulbs; to find a recycler near you, try Earth 911, or (800) CLEAN-UP, for a location near you.
Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
So much for that part of Fox's story, but I'm not quite done with calling them on their hokum. So read on, if you wish. The Fox piece chides environmentalists for contradicting themselves by promoting fluorescent lightbulbs while having "whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs" and going "berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants."

Yes, as Fox notes, a fluorescent bulb contains around 5 milligrams of mercury (although some brands, such as Philips Lighting, claim their bulbs have as little as 1.23 to 3 milligrams). What Fox conveniently doesn't bother to mention is that a thermometer can contain 140 times as much mercury as a fluorescent lightbulb, making concern about these instruments eminently reasonable. Nor is it exactly going "berserk" to worry about mercury from power plants. Coal-burning power plants emit 50 tons of the stuff every year, around 40 percent of the total mercury emissions in the United States.

Since residential lighting accounts for about 5.7 percent of our total national electricity consumption--about half of which is generated by coal--creating power for home lighting releases about 1.4 tons of mercury every year. And since incandescent bulbs account for about 88 percent of all bulbs, they are responsible for emitting around 1.2 tons of mercury a year.

Let's imagine for a moment that all 4 billion residential lightbulbs have become CFLs, each one with an average life span of 5.5 years (the minimum for EPA-approved bulbs). That means we'd have to change about 727 million fluorescent bulbs a year. At 5 grams of mercury per bulb, that adds up to about 4 tons of mercury. Since fluorescents use only 25 percent as much energy as incandescents, installing them in all houses would decrease mercury emissions from power plants by 0.9 tons a year.

So even in the incredibly unlikely scenario that every single dead bulb were smashed, and its contents released into the environment, switching to CFLs would yield a maximum 3.1 tons of mercury each year--the 4 tons in them minus the 0.9 tons of emissions they offset. (If all bulbs used were the longer-lived models, with a life span of nine years, the net emission would drop to 1.9 tons annually even if not a single bulb got recycled. And as lower-mercury bulbs came online, the net release would drop even more.)

Fox simply ignores the fact that people don't have to throw away all those burned-out fluorescents in the first place. About 25 percent are already being recycled, just because the government requires businesses to do so. If consumers were better educated about compact fluorescents, they would recycle more of them, as they have learned to do with other materials. If we created an economic incentive--a stiff deposit on CFLs, for example--recycling rates would vastly increase, just as they have with cans and bottles in states where container deposits are required.

Of course, by focusing on mercury, Fox also fails to note that even the shorter-lived fluorescents would eliminate about 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants alone, and an equivalent amount of other pollutants. That's something to weigh heavily even against the heavy metal mercury.

Environmentally,
Mr. Green
The Sierra Club

Boosting Mileage Standards!!!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate passed an energy bill late Thursday that includes an increase in automobile fuel economy, new laws against energy price-gouging and a requirement for huge increases in the production of ethanol.

In an eleventh-hour compromise fashioned after two days of closed-door meetings, an agreement was reached to increase average fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020.

But the fuel economy issue threatened to topple the legislation up to the last minute. Majority Leader Harry Reid held off the vote until late into the evening so several senators could be called back to Capitol Hill to provide the 60-vote margin needed to overcome a threatened filibuster from pro-auto industry senators.

Shortly before midnight, senators voted 62-32 to cut off debate, and followed by passing the bill 65-27. The measure now awaits action by the House, which is expected to take it up next week. But attempts to combine the two bills and send legislation to President Bush probably won't be possible until later this year.

It would be the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency since the current 22.7 mpg for cars was put in place in 1989 and the first time Congress has imposed a new auto efficiency mandate in 32 years.

Supporters said the new requirement would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, when large numbers of the more fuel-stingy cars will be on the road.

Republicans complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production.

But its supporters said it reflects a shift to new energy priorities, away from promoting fossil fuels to supporting other energy sources such wind and biomass to make electricity and ethanol to power cars and trucks.

"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," declared Reid.

But Democrats didn't get all that they wanted.

Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it.

Democrats also were unable to include in the bill a requirement for electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable fuels such as wind and biomass. Senators from the South objected, saying the region couldn't meet such a standard, and Republicans refused to let the measure come up for a vote.

But the legislation provides a bonanza to farmers and the ethanol industry. It requires ethanol production to grow to at least 36 billion gallon a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase of the amount of ethanol processed last year.

The legislation also calls for:

• Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels.

Mmmhmmm...

The Independent

Leading Article: A global warning from the dust bowl of Australia

Published: 20 April 2007

Australia is in the midst of a crippling drought, the country's worst on record. Many towns and cities have been forced to enact drastic water restrictions as reservoirs have run dry. Rivers have been reduced to a trickle. The drought has severely damaged the agricultural sector. Farmers are raising emaciated cattle and sheep. Cotton-lint production has plummeted. Wine grape and rice output has collapsed. Agricultural production has fallen by almost one-quarter in a year. And it is estimated that the drought has knocked three-quarters to 1 per cent off the country's growth as a whole.

And now the government is reaching for desperate measures. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has announced there may be a ban on the use of the country's largest river system for irrigation unless there is significant rainfall over the next two months. The government is preparing to wrest regulatory control of the Murray and Darling rivers from the five states through which they run to ensure that water is reserved for urban drinking supplies and farmers' domestic use.

The Murray-Darling river basin has been called Australia's "food bowl". It generates about 40 per cent of the country's farm produce. If this tract of land - the size of France and Spain combined - is denied irrigation it would spell ruin for Australia's agricultural sector. Thousands of farmers could lose their citrus, almond and olive trees if they cannot be watered. Trees would die and production would be impossible for at least half a decade. Even if the rains do come in Australia in the coming weeks, as forecast, they will have to be especially long and prolonged to alleviate the crisis.

Moreover, this is a taste of things to come - not just for Australia, but the world. As the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes clear, the runaway warming of the earth will bring severe drought in its wake. And the economic consequences will be disastrous. Sir Nicholas Stern's report for the Treasury outlined last year how climate change could be as economically traumatic as the Great Depression or the world wars of the 20th century.

There is already a growing drought problem in the Horn of Africa, most likely brought about by global warming. The Darfur crisis has been exacerbated by competition between Arab and African tribes for water resources. But this seems to be the first extended drought brought about by climate change in a developed country. It is a grim irony that Australia is suffering first. The country is led by a man who has helped to wreck concerted international action to slow climate change. Australia is the only industrialised nation, apart from the US, to refuse to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Howard, along with President George Bush in the US, has formed an axis of denial over the seriousness of global warming. Earlier this year he suggested "the jury is out" on the link between climate change and man-made carbon dioxide emissions, despite the consensus among the world's scientists that such a link is pretty much beyond doubt.

But Mr Howard is now singing a rather different tune. His government recently announced plans to ban inefficient light bulbs to reduce Australia's carbon emissions. And now he prays for rain. This is because the drought is likely to be an important issue in Australia's elections this year. Mr Howard recognises that baiting asylum-seekers and posturing as President Bush's "deputy sheriff" in the Pacific is not enough. Suddenly, the environment matters.

Today, Australia; tomorrow, vast areas of the world's surface: the imperative for the world's leaders to take serious action to curb climate change has never been starker.

Oh SHIT...

yet another reason we need to be working tirelessly to find new energy alternatives. and i mean NOW! there should be no more important issue for this country, save defending our borders, than creating a new, reliable, renewable way to supply the energy are so hungry for while not harming our fragile ecosystem.



'Strong Possibility' Gas Will Rise to $4

Oil Prices Ease After Iran Hostages Are Freed, but Analysts Say High Demand to Keep Gas Prices High

By DAN ARNALL
ABC News Business Unit
April 4, 2007

For the past two weeks, Iran has not just been holding 15 British soldiers captive; it's been holding the world's oil markets hostage, too.

"There's been a $5 or $6 premium that's been built into the price of oil over this," said Phil Flynn, vice president and energy analyst at Alaron Trading. "Even though this crisis has ended, the oil market is still on guard that the tensions in the Middle East are going to continue."

Oil prices spiked this morning when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared on television, because of uncertainty over what he was going to announce. When he started awarding medals to the troops who had captured the Britons, traders assumed the worst.

But by the end of Ahmadinejad's television appearance it was apparent that the soldiers were heading home, and the price of a barrel of oil started to retreat from recent highs, giving up more than $1 to drop to about $64.

Analysts say that the price reduction should hold during the coming days but won't translate into lower prices at the pump.

"Things are looking pretty bad for the upcoming summer driving season," said Flynn, citing a new government report showing that the U.S. stockpiles of gasoline fell by 5 million barrels in the past week, much more than analysts were expecting.

Flynn said he believes gasoline prices will head into record territory -- currently a nationwide average of $3.07 -- by the height of the summer season.

"This is the time of year when we're supposed to be building supplies, but it seems like the refiners just can't get ahead of what has been very, very strong demand," he said.

Today's report shows that the national supply of gas is at the low end of its average range for this time of year, meaning the United States will have less gas in the tank before the peak summer driving season in the coming months.

Analysts said that puts the country on the edge, making any disruption in supply -- such as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico refining regions or an expansion of the crisis in the Middle East -- that much more dangerous.

"Everyone asks me, will we see $4 a gallon? And the answer is, there is a strong possibility that we may see $4 a gallon," said Flynn.

Unconscionable...

this is perhaps the most ridiculous thing ever to be transcribed into written language. this ceo, this protector of "the little guy that no one cares about" seems to have forgotten that if our air is clouded with all the dangerous toxins that coal fire plants produce (acrolein, arsenic, carbon monoxide, chlorine, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, ozone, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulfur oxide) it will matter not if all of those poor fly-over state residents have employment or not, because they will be too ill to work, or worse, six feet under, longing for the good ole days when they were simply alive and jobless.

A CEO With A Spine

BY ALICIA COLON
acolon@nysun.com
April 3, 2007
Original Article


The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy. In his speech, he dared to say that he regards Al Gore as the shaman of global doom and gloom. He is not joking when he says, "He is more dangerous than his global warming."

Unlike many heads of corporations who are taking their companies on that long green mile and caving in to the demands of environmental militants, Mr. Murray is fighting tooth and nail for what he says is, "the little guy that nobody cares about."

"Some wealthy elitists in our country," he told the audience, "who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns."

Mr. Murray was a coal miner in Ohio who survived two mining accidents and built funds from a mortgaged house into a private coal mining company with more than 3,000 employees. He expresses concern about the proposals in Congress that will ration the use of coal, warning of much worse adverse consequences to Americans than those experienced after the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Murray told me that he had seen the effect of the drastic reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on hundreds of communities, as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, about 118 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. He spoke of the families that broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished, because of legislation that the environmentalists call a "success."

"I don't need a computer graphic like in Gore's movie, to learn about this havoc," he told me, "I lived it and saw it firsthand."

To Mr. Murray, so-called "global warming" is a human issue, not just an environmental one. In his speech, Murray said, "The unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media, and by the pundits has been skewed and totally one-sided, in that they have been preoccupied, speculative environmental disasters of climate change."

Mr. Murray told me that the Democrats had tried to stop his scheduled testimony on March 20 before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, titled "Toward a Clean Energy Future: Energy Policy and Climate Change on Public Lands." But after Mr. Murray was interviewed by Bloomberg News and by the Wall Street Journal, they relented. The chairman refused to hear his testimony and left Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat of Rhode Island, in charge.

In his testimony, Mr. Murray explained: "America is dependent on our coal because it is abundant, with some of our best deposits located on public lands; it is affordable; and it is critical to our energy security to protect all Americans from the hostile and unstable governments from which much of our country's energy is currently imported."

Right now about 52% of the country's electricity is generated by coal. In the coastal cities we tend to forget about that because we get most of our electricity from oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. But the farms that grow our food and many other industries around the country can't afford these more expensive sources of energy. Manufacturers will outsource jobs to foreign countries that will not subscribe to emission caps and controls. China is building 50 new coal-fired power plants, and Beijing has stated it will not agree to mandatory emission constraints in the post-2012 Kyoto treaty. Why are we being so stupid about this issue?

The irony is that these caps and controls will do little to affect climate. Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant, testified before the committee that global warming is more likely to be caused by sun spots rather than human activity. Mr. Murray's passion for saving the "little guy" is truly admirable. Too bad that fervor is completely absent in Congress.

Priceless...

whether or not "global warming" is a real thing -- something that is cause for concern on our planet -- even an idiot can see that all of the millions of tons of PURE CRAP that we as a people are spewing into the air we breath is not a good thing. whether it is more than that, whether it is the culprit in changing our earths weather patterns and raising its mean temperatures, i do not know for sure; though i believe it in fact IS. everyone should realize that whether that is the case or not, it just makes good common sense to stop polluting our world; to stop CO2 emissions, to stop the burning of coal, and to work harder and much faster to find solutions to the ever present question of "where will our energy come from?" anyone who says otherwise isnt using their brain. in fact, they are just down right DAFT! any one can see that keeping our air clean is in ALL of our best interests. this SHOULD NOT be a political issue. PERIOD. president bush and that vacuous oklahoman, james inhofe, need to put aside their concern for the price it will cost and resign themselves to the fact that this is a PRICELESS issue, one that none of us can afford to allow to continue to progress unchecked.



GOVERNMENT MUST DEAL WITH GREENHOUSE GASES: US SUPREME COURT
Apr 2 12:27 PM

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.
"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.

Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation's industry.

Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.

As the issue has come to the fore in the US, the White House earlier this year issued a rare open letter defending Bush's record on climate change, rejecting criticisms that he has only recently awakened to the problem.

Monday's ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

"It is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group.

"This is a total repudiation of the refusal of the Bush administration to use the authority he has to meet the challenge posed by global warming.

It also "sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions of tomorrow like wind, solar," he added.