Teach your children well. This is sound advice to which we can all sing along thanks to 1970s folk rock, but speaking as both a parent and a former high school teacher, I have also seen time and again that for whatever and however we teach our children, they often teach us more and better if we make an effort to see the world from their vantage point.
As the Engagement and Program Coordinator for Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, reading the dozens of essays written by local high school youth for our Earth Day essay contest demonstrated this once again to be true. There are many young people right here in the Mid-Ohio Valley who acknowledge the reality of climate change and are willing to thoughtfully engage with the problem in the quest for solutions. Here are a few ways in which they impressed us with their essay submissions about carbon footprint reduction and a lesson or two that they taught us along the way.
First, it is notable that our young people are willing to openly and respectfully converse with friends, family, and neighbors about climate change, including those who may be neutral or even adverse to the topic. Not only are they willing, but a common theme running throughout the essays was their insistence that this conversation is necessary to building the awareness that precedes action and solutions.
Our first place essayist, a sophomore from Warren Local, also acknowledged that it is unrealistic to expect one’s environmental message to always fall on enthusiastic ears, but she demonstrated an admirable willingness to continue educating others, regardless. Offering a metaphor to teach us undeterred patience when encountering what appears to be disinterest, she writes, “Just because you plant a seed doesn’t mean it will grow; however, some seeds need to winter before they can sprout.”
Second, our young people demonstrate in their essays an ability to self-reflect and then consider where they might make changes in their own daily habits. They do not take new ideas that contradict their old ones as a personal affront, but approach them with a mindset of opportunity, recognizing a chance to make a positive impact. At the same time, they are realistic and honest. They know that there are limits imposed by geography, availability of resources, and even just by modern life that make it difficult or impossible for any one person to always follow every climate-friendly recommendation of which they are aware. Regardless, they refrain from despair or harsh judgment, and proceed with earnest intention toward a solution.
Third, while they are certainly willing to reflect on how personal choices affect one’s impact on climate and the environment as a whole, as we would all be wise to do, our young people also think critically about the role of systems and institutions in this global crisis. For example, our third place writer, a junior from Waterford High School, opines that a popular narrative in discussions about curbing carbon emissions places the onus disproportionately upon the average individual, while the role and responsibilities of a powerful and wealthy fossil fuel industry are meanwhile largely ignored. It can be inferred that for as long as we leave out this piece of the puzzle, we are destined to never solve it.
Along these lines, our second place finalist, a senior from Ritchie County, adds that while “personal initiative is noble and helpful, real change requires collaboration.” That is, small actions we take in our daily lives certainly matter, but they alone are not going to solve the problem. He makes note of political importance, as well, suggesting that the power of our vote and who we choose as our leaders supersedes the impact of our personal environmentalism. In short, young people lead us to the idea that our collective voices must also be used to compel economic and political systems to do their part.
There is another line from classic rock that comes to mind as I reflect on our recent essay submissions: “The kids are alright.” When it comes to our thoughtful teenage writers, I can’t help but agree. I encourage the grown-ups — myself included — to follow the lead of concerned youth on climate. If we do, they will indeed teach us well, and the planet we inhabit may just turn out alright, too.
***
Angie Iafrate is the Engagement and Program Coordinator with Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action focusing on youth programs and outreach.
My mother, a wise and unconventional woman, was in many ways far ahead of her peers and her times. Back in the 1950s, our urban N.J. home was surrounded by lovely flower gardens, lush greenery, huge shade trees, and numerous fruit trees. (No one else in our neighborhood had fruit trees!)
The interior of our home was filled with houseplants. I used to marvel and complain that every room except the bathrooms had numerous plants on the tabletops, window sills … virtually every flat surface. When asked about the presence of all that greenery, my mother would explain that plants improve the air quality and it was a good idea to have plants in our home, and trees all around us, because they helped us stay healthy. At the time, it seemed like a bizarre notion.
My mom has been gone for several years, but if she were alive, I am sure she would have been quick to jump on the climate change /environmental awareness bandwagon. It turns out she was right: PLANTS IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
No existing, human-made air filtration system has the ability to create oxygen. Oxygen is a critical element of clean and healthy air. Indoor plants create oxygen. Plants clean the air through the process of photosynthesis. We humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide; plants do the opposite. During the process of photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we breathe.
Studies from NASA reveal that plant-filled rooms contain 50 to 60 percent fewer airborne molds and bacteria than rooms without plants. And a cleaner environment is just the start. An NBC news report pointed out that “indoor plants improve concentration and productivity, reduce stress levels and boost your mood.”
Consider now — TREES.
Trees create a peaceful, aesthetically pleasing environment. Trees increase our quality of life by bringing natural elements and wildlife habitats into urban and suburban settings.
Trees improve water quality, and reduce flooding and erosion. A tree’s leafy canopy catches precipitation before it reaches the ground, allowing some of it to gently drip and the rest to evaporate. Tree roots hold soil in place, reducing erosion. In these ways, trees lessen the force of storms and reduce the amount of runoff into sewers.
Urban trees provide a cost-effective solution to improving air quality in our cities. The pores on the underside of tree leaves are effective in removing sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic carbon. The leaves’ upper surface intercepts airborne particulates, contributing even more to a healthy urban environment. It was estimated that trees in Chicago, for example, remove approximately 234 tons of particulates annually.
And trees give back even more. Remember photosynthesis and the fact that it releases oxygen? Studies reveal that one mature tree yields enough oxygen for four people EVERY DAY. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people.”
Trees contribute to their environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife. Trees, shrubs, and turf also filter air by removing dust and absorbing other pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. After trees intercept unhealthy particles, rain washes them to the ground.
Trees control climate by moderating the effects of the sun, rain and wind. Trees lower the air temperature and reduce the heat intensity of the greenhouse effect by maintaining low levels of carbon dioxide.
Trees mitigate the impact of climate change, and plants do, indeed, improve the quality of life. As usual, my mother was right.
***
Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M.Ed., is a mother, grandmother and concerned citizen. She is a member of MOVCA.
To quote Johan Rockstrom, Vice-Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, “An emergency is calculated by risk divided by time. Risk is probability multiplied by impact. Scientifically, we now have a very unfortunate set of data in front of us. We know that the likely impact on humans of climate disruption, mass extinction and air pollution is very, very high indeed. The probability is also uncomfortably high. This adds up to a very high risk. Now divide that by time. We have unequivocal evidence that we have entered a decisive decade. If we have any chance to prevent the loss of more than a million species, we must halt biodiversity loss now, not in 20 or 30 years. If we want to have any chance of keeping global warming to 1.5C [centigrade above preindustrial levels], we need to cut emissions by half over the next nine years.”
One of the best, or at least most immediate, shots we have in the U.S. at beginning to tackle the anthropogenic (human-caused) global climate crisis and related crises is infrastructure legislation now being devised, revised and debated in the U.S. Senate. This effort must coincide with the creation of a post-pandemic 21st Century economy that allows the American people to thrive.
Thrive–you should keep that word in mind. Why? Because the THRIVE (Transform, Heal and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy) Act is our best shot at tackling climate and biodiversity as well as economic and public health crises starting now. The THRIVE Act would create 50,000 jobs in the first full year of the program and sustain high levels of employment throughout the next decade. The program would invest $5.2 billion per year for a decade into West Virginia in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency, infrastructure, electric vehicles, agriculture and land restoration, and the care economy, public health and the postal service. Economic renewal investments with strong labor standards ensure that jobs will not only increase, but that the quality of jobs will also improve.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and her Republican colleagues aren’t taking these goals seriously. They want to ignore the care economy entirely and they fail to take seriously and adequately address the climate and related crises we face. They miss the mark on a 21st Century economy centered around renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable agriculture and development that creates thousands of good-paying union jobs.
Republicans can’t even meet President Biden halfway on his American Jobs Plan. They want to talk about roads, bridges, water systems and broadband, which are all extremely important and included in both the American Jobs Plan and the THRIVE Act but focusing on just these is myopic.
Now is the time to go big and be bold. West Virginians are tired of just surviving, at best, while facing an addiction epidemic, the fallout of a global COVID-19 pandemic, and losing more population than any other state in the Union. We need leaders with vision and the tenacity to deliver. We’re tired of excuses and watching politicians check their stock portfolios and check in with industry lobbyists and deep pocket campaign contributors before they decide whether or not to listen to their constituents.
According to findings from a Data for Progress poll conducted May 7-11, two-thirds of voters are concerned about the impacts of climate change on their communities. That is all the mandate that the U.S. Congress and the White House need to take action! Tell Sen. Joe Manchin III and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito to act today and support the THRIVE Act, or at the very least go as big and as bold with the American Jobs Plan as they can possibly go. It’s time for West Virginia and the rest of the country to thrive!
***
Eric Engle is Chairman of the not-for-profit volunteer organization Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, Board Member for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Co-Chairman of the Sierra Club of West Virginia Chapter’s Executive Committee.
What is the proper amount of emissions to allow from industrial and chemical plants and how are emissions traded for jobs?
I was appalled when I compared what West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection expected to allow for the proposed West Virginia Methanol plant in Pleasants County, near the Ohio River, with what was achieved 30 years ago for a new plastics plant in New York.
About 1990, GE built a new plant in New York State. As I remember the Geloy plant yearly produced 30 million pounds of plastic and only one pound of emissions. The entire plant was inside a new building. There was a continuous air monitoring system, which sampled air at several critical locations. If the monitor detected more than 1 part per million of acrylonitrile, an alarm sounded and corrective action was taken.
Contrast that with the methanol plant under review by the WV DEP.
According to a Gazette-Mail article April 30, 2021:
“The proposed facility has the potential to emit 91 tons of carbon monoxide, 92 tons of nitrogen oxides (poisonous, highly reactive gases), 54 combined tons of three different kinds of particulate matter, and 11 combined tons of the known or probable human carcinogens formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene, according to West Virginia Methanol’s permit application.”
West Virginia Methanol will emit hundreds of tons of emissions compared to one pound of emissions achieved 30 years ago at the GE Geloy plant in Selkirk, N.Y. These emissions do not even include methanol but only byproducts of the process.
Since none of these separate byproducts individually exceeds the 100 tons per year required by the state to be considered a “major” emitter, no emissions modeling is required. One regulated stream will be 92 percent of a “major” emitter and a second will be 90 percent. When added together the two streams clearly exceed 100 tons. This appears to be a clever attempt to build the first of several possible plants and never be considered a “major” emitter.
I am familiar with butadiene, one chemical byproduct to be emitted by the methanol plant, which I used as a student and at GE Plastics, Washington plant. The plant used barge loads.
To compare the butadiene emissions from a plant that used massive amounts as a raw material to emissions of the proposed methanol plant that produced butadiene only as a byproduct, I looked at the WV DEP public records for the SABIC plant, formerly GE Plastics. For 2014 SABIC reported 0.5 tons per year of butadiene emissions. The methanol plant will be permitted to emit 11 tons of a mixture of four suspected carcinogens, one of which is butadiene. If all the mixture is butadiene, then the new construction will be permitted to emit 22 times more butadiene as a byproduct than the SABIC plant, which used butadiene as a feed stock, actually emitted in 2014.
I only found the 0.5 ton of butadiene after hours reading public records for the SABIC plant. Most appeared to be 60 pages of yearly documentation that correct procedures were followed. None had any numerical data about what was emitted. Only one Certified Emission Statement dated 7-11-2014 actually listed data. A Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Worksheet, filled out by hand, indicated 0.5 tons of butadiene was included in the combined total. The total also contained 3.7 tons of acrylonitrile, 2.72 tons of cumene, 3.87 of methyl methacrylate, and 22.18 tons of styrene plus other minor emissions. In 2014 SABIC reported emissions of 34.06 tons of combined Hazardous Air Pollutants.
In my opinion:
1) All emissions from the proposed WV Methanol plant should be added together in determining if the emitter is “major,” especially since two of the byproduct emission streams are each over 90 percent of the “major” 100 ton limit. In addition the emissions of methanol should be included in the “major” limit calculation.
2) Emission modeling for the methanol plant should be completed, even if it is not legally required.
3) Continuous fence line monitoring should be standard for all new plant construction or major modifications. If this is not done by the plant owner, DEP should have mobile monitors that are periodically placed near the fence line and the data made public. The public should be able to monitor anywhere outside the plant boundaries.
4) Best available technology should be used for new construction and major modifications.
5) Building several small plants as a substitute for one large plant to circumvent the emission requirements for the single large plant should not be allowed.
6) Annual emissions for each plant and each chemical should be easily accessible to the general public. This would lead to a clearer public understanding of the trade off between the health hazards of too lax and the economic hazard of too restrictive legislation.
***
Warren Peascoe is a Ph.D. chemist, retired from Uniroyal and GE Plastics,
Appearing on-line in The Bargain Hunter(Weekly news magazine serving Ohio Counties: Holmes, Tuscarawas, Wayne, and the surrounding area. Stark, Medina, Summit and Cuyahoga):
Posted May 4, 2021 video of April 10, 2021 live-streamed event
“Jammin’ For Jobs -Full Clean Cut Video”
Musicians, artists, community leaders and citizens from across state came together to demand better jobs in WV and for Congress to support the THRIVE AC
Tuesday May 25, 2021 Zoom Public event hosted by Buckeye Environmental Network & Tackling the A-Z Impacts of Plastic, Ohio River Guardians, Ohio Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival; & UUJO: Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio
“S.O.S. Learn & Act to Save Ohioans from Radioactive Brine Spreading”
Zoom event about two dangerous bills, H.B. 282 and S.B. 171, that threaten Ohioans health from radioactive oil and gas waste brine
Thursday, May 20, 2021 6:30 pm. Virtual Conference hosted by Concerned Ohio River Residents, League of Women Voters, and the Climate Reality Project. Supported by MOVCAas May public program.
“A Better Vision for the Valley” Recording of conference posted to YouTube on May 21, 2021 at this link:
This second conference (first in May 2019) is to brainstorm sustainable economic development potential in our communities. Conference speakers, experts and entrepreneurs: Sean O’Leary, Ohio River Valley Institute; Annie Rouse, Think Hempy Thoughts and Anavil Market; Jeffrey Morris, Roxby Development; and Vincent DeGeorge, Grow Ohio Valley.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021 7 p.m. Zoom Webinar hosted by Ohio Poor People’s Campaign & Our Voices Together
“Ohio Environmental Issues – Their Connection to Regressive Policies and Their Impact”
Discussion about Ohio’s Environmental Issues – Their Connection to Regressive Policies, Voter Suppression, Anti-Protest Bills and the 5 Systemic Evils. Guest speakers included: Rev. Joan Vanbecelaere- UUJOP; Christy Stonebaker Martinez – InterReligious Taskforce on Central America; Guy Jones- Miami Valley Council for Native Americans; Jill Hunkler – Concerned Ohio River Residents; Justin Thompson – Ashtabula County Water Watch. Zoom Registration required:
May 19, 4PM & May 20, 2021 8 PM Zoom Webinar promoted by WV New Jobs Coalition https://www.newjobswv.org
Green New Deal Storytelling Training “#TimeToThrive Stories Training”
Storytelling for action training & make a video in support of the THRIVE Act for climate, jobs, & justice
Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4-5 p.m. Zoom – Panel and community discussion hosted by WV Interfaith Power & Light
“Standing Up for Appalachia: Bringing Jobs and Economic Justice to West Virginia”
Learn about federal and regional economic initiatives such as the RECLAIM Act, ReImagine Appalachia, the THRIVE Agenda, and the American Jobs Plan. . . and how you can help. Registration required.
ACTION LINKS:
Available on-line at West Virginia Rivers:
May 27, 2021 WV Rivers News Article by Kathleen Tyner (Action Link provided)
“Action alert: Let WV’s Senators Know You’re Depending on Them for Critical Infrastructure Legislation”
People in the Appalachian region have for generations assumed that good-paying union jobs had to involve the sacrifice of their health–even their lives–in extractive industries such as coal. New research and new projects indicate that it does not have to be this way. There are good jobs in a reimagined Appalachia, such as those involved with capping abandoned oil and gas wells, modernizing the electricity grid, redesigning buildings and industry for energy efficiency, regenerative agriculture, clean and efficient manufacturing, a sustainable transportation system, energy storage, repurposing coal-fired power plants, and creating pathways and training programs for low-wage workers.
The officially recognized area of Appalachia, which is administered by the Appalachian Regional Commission, is comprised geographically of the area from northern Alabama and Georgia to the southern tier of New York State. It includes 13 states; West Virginia is the only state that is entirely encapsulated in the region. For decades this region has been associated with high unemployment, low educational achievement, high poverty rates, population decline, and more recently opioid abuse.
While the grip of the fossil-fuel industry in Appalachia has been quite firm in the 20th Century, this grasp has recently loosened. As coal has been recognized as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and as other sources of energy like natural gas and renewables like wind and solar have shown market advantages, coal has been in an inexorable decline. Energy companies themselves are shifting away from coal, as coal-fired power plants in Appalachia and around the country are shut down. Many in the region and in the Congress have supported the idea that long-term support, in the form of wages and benefits as well as job training, needs to be provided for those in the coal industry who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
The natural gas business provides a more affordable and less polluting source of energy than coal, and some of its advocates have argued that the industrial practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a promising source of jobs and economic development for the Appalachian region and specifically the Ohio Valley. So far, this vision has not been realized. “Frackalachia” is the term used to describe the region within Appalachia where fracking for oil and natural gas (mostly the latter) takes place. As noted by the Ohio River Valley Institute, the boom in the shale-gas industry provided an overall benefit to the U.S. economy but did not provide any increase in jobs, population, or economic development in the region. Only 20 cents per dollar found its way into the local economy according to this study, and during this shale-gas boom jobs were in decline.
Washington County, Ohio, has more to offer for a reimagined Appalachia than to serve as the trash heap for fracking waste; the county has one of the largest number of injection wells in the state for pumping radioactive and toxic fracking waste into the ground from Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
There are already projects in the region for a reimagined Appalachia. In Wheeling, W.Va., there are greenhouses and vertically integrated businesses in regenerative agriculture, producing locally grown crops for local consumption in facilities like greenhouses built in abandoned factories. The Solvay plant in Marietta has combined with DTE Energy for a CHP (combined heat and power) project, saving 300 jobs at Solvay and 50 at neighboring American Styrenes. Battery manufacturing for the electric vehicle industry has emerged in eastern Ohio. New Jobs Appalachia is a local effort to spark new thinking that can seize the opportunities in a renewable economy rather than turning our backs on them.
The community of Centralia, Wash., is a model of repurposed infrastructure for economic development of the 21st Century. Formally a site of a coal mine, employing 600 workers and a coal-fired power plant with 370 workers, Centralia reimagined itself with GDP gains at twice the rate of the U.S. as well as population growth. This growth was achieved through three initiatives: a weatherization fund for energy-efficiency upgrades, an economic community development fund using local labor, such as HVAC, lighting contractors, and an energy technology fund for clean energy generation. These are 21st Century businesses that provide local jobs with good wages and benefits and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and that should serve as a compelling model for our region of Appalachia.
An experiment is in the works in southwest Virginia and Tennessee, that might have far-reaching benefits for the rest of coal country. A Nature Conservancy preserve that spans parts of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee includes approximately 550 acres of deforested mineland, for which developers are working on a large-scale solar project. According to Energy News Network, the project is expected to be generating up to 75 megawatts of solar energy within the next two to three years.
To put that in perspective, the Pleasants Power Station near Belmont, W.Va., has a capacity of 1,300 MW; the Mitchell Power Plant near Moundsville is 1,633 MW. Still, 75 MW is well above the level needed to be labeled a utility-scale project, and the work on the Cumberland Forest property could become a model for repurposing mine lands, creating renewable energy jobs and finding out just how much solar facilities can be scaled up to meet energy needs.
“We can do things that are good for nature and people,” Brad Kreps, director of the conservancy’s Clinch Valley Program in Abingdon, Va., told Energy News Network. “A mission of conservation and economic recovery can be compatible. These two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive.”
Developers are still working on the project, but should it come to fruition, the results should help inform energy and development policy in a region working so desperately to diversify its economy, do right by the planet AND preserve quality of life for families who have depended on coal for generations.
I was quite interested to read “Honest environmental talks,” Christina Myer’s May 15 column in the News and Sentinel.
Myer’s piece deals with the subject of rare earth metals used in various sources of renewable energy, and the potential hazard of “trading one kind of destructive extraction industry for another.”
Broadly speaking, I do agree with Myer’s point that there are no easy answers to the challenges we face. Lithium, a key ingredient in the manufacture of electric car batteries, for instance, can be so environmentally destructive that it’s sometimes referred to as “white oil,” and is frequently mined in hellish conditions through what can only be described as slave labor.
On the other hand, electric vehicles still remain cleaner than their gasoline-powered alternatives overall, and even as I write this there is serious research being conducted into powering EV’s without the use of any rare earth metals whatsoever.
In her column, Myer calls for a “more honest, more difficult discussion” about climate change. And I respect that. What, then, might such a discussion look like?
For starters, it must begin with a few very basic, incontrovertible facts: climate change is real, it’s driven by fossil fuel extraction, and it will cause civilization as we know it to collapse should we fail to transition away from fossil fuels at whiplash-inducing speeds.
From here, as I see it, there are four fundamental paths we can choose to take:
1. Do nothing, continue burning fossil fuels, and allow civilization to collapse.
2. Trade one form of exploitation for another, and preserve the Global North and capitalist extremism by plundering the Global South as we have been, in order to maintain our affluent lifestyles.
3. Find a way of transitioning to renewable energy that ensures materials are ethically and sustainably sourced, at the pace and scale necessary to avert catastrophic, runaway warming.
And 4., probably the most radical option of all to most readers: accept Kenneth Goulding’s sentiment that “Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist,” and embrace the reduction and degrowth of Global North economies.
We can choose to like it or not, but this is the hand we’ve been dealt, thanks in overwhelming part to the misinformation and delay tactics of the fossil fuel industry.
I wholeheartedly back Ms. Myer’s call for engaging in difficult conversations about climate change. The bigger issue, to me, is whether or not we’re mature enough as a society to accept the difficult answers we’re likely to be presented with.
In its current state, carbon capture is another false promise when it comes to addressing the urgent need to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. The very industry that is a main contributor to climate change can now profit from tax breaks and government funding being directed at Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) projects. A 2019 report by the Center for International Environmental Law, “Fuel to Fire,” states, “It is not surprising that the fossil fuel industry has invested and is investing heavily in the technologies that would render a transition from fossil fuels less urgent.” Carbon capture is one of those technologies.
First used in 1972 in Chevron’s Terrell Natural Gas plant in Texas, carbon capture can remove carbon dioxide from exhaust fumes of industrial facilities such as coal and gas power plants or from the surrounding air. There are several techniques that have been used to capture CO2. These include: absorbing it with a sponge-like material; separating it with membranes; or cooling and condensing it using a cryogenic process. These processes all require high energy inputs, and once captured, the carbon dioxide is either stored or used. Storage involves the gas being transported to locations where it is injected deep underground into saline deposits or rock strata.
Small amounts of carbon dioxide have been used as a feedstock for chemicals or fuels, to distill and carbonate beverages, or for use in greenhouses to help promote plant growth. Once again there are substantial costs involved to transport the gas, and carbon dioxide captured this way can quickly re-enter the atmosphere. According to a recent paper in Nature Climate Change, “the tonnage of CO2 humanity emits simply dwarfs the tonnage of carbon-based products it consumes.”
The majority of carbon dioxide from CCS is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). During this procedure, pressurized CO2 is pumped into old oil field wells to help force out any remaining oil deposits. The majority of the world’s 21 large-scale CCS plants are located in the USA and Canada, and all but five sell or send their carbon dioxide to facilities involved in enhanced oil recovery. The carbon dioxide removed by power plants can be sold to other companies that use it to help “bolster” production of older oil fields.
There are many economic, social, and environmental problems associated with using CCS for oil recovery. Using the carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery does not guarantee the gas is permanently removed from the atmosphere. Eventually it is released back to the atmosphere as it leaks from the wells and fissures. Additionally, it enables more oil to be extracted thus continuing our reliance on fossil fuels and contributing to climate change.
In the CIEL report “Fuel to Fire,” Exxon stated that it had a working interest in one quarter of the world’s total carbon capture and storage (CCS) capacity, and Shell is involved with four current CCS projects. Chevron has invested $75 million in CCS research in the past ten years, while BP is a current sponsor of the CO2 Capture Project. There are economic incentives that are encouraging fossil fuel industries to champion the use of CCS. These include government programs as well as tax incentives.
In 2008, a program was set up to give tax credits to companies using CCS. According to section 45 Q of the tax code, companies could get tax credits for capturing carbon dioxide and doing one of three things with it: dispose of it in an underground secure geological site, use it for enhanced oil recovery, or use it in a commercial process. In 2018, the tax credits for CCS were raised to $50 per metric ton of CO2 from the previous $20 per ton, and credits for carbon dioxide used in EOR were raised from $20 to $35 per ton.
Estimates based on IRS records show that Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits using this law. There is a requirement that companies claiming the tax credit also commit to a monitoring program through the EPA. A new industry group, Energy Advance Center, which represents companies like Exxon, have lobbied to do away with monitoring programs that would ensure CCS emissions did not escape back into the atmosphere.
Additionally, CCS research projects have received substantial amounts of government funding. According to the Department of Energy, CCS research projects received $110 million in 2019, $72 million in 2020, and as of April of 2021 received $75 million.
Recently, U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Capito introduced legislation to augment the tax credits for CCS under 45Q and 48A, tax credits for coal companies using CCS. One facet of the bill would grant the same tax treatment to CCS as is currently offered to wind and solar projects. It would also allow for direct payments of carbon capture credits. No surprise that many of the Carbon Capture Utilization and Tax Credit Amendment Act supporters are from states heavily influenced by the fossil fuel industry (West Virginia, Wyoming and North Dakota).
Finally, there are issues of safety involved in CCS. Once the carbon dioxide is captured it can be used or stored but it also must be transported. This involves pipelines. In 2019, in Yazo, Miss., a 24-inch carbon-dioxide containing underground pipeline ruptured. Over 300 people were evacuated and 46 people were treated at hospitals. The concentration of carbon dioxide was high enough to cause gas-powered car engines to stop. First responders said some people were unconscious while others wandered around like zombies.
Unlike solar and wind energy, which according to Clean Technica are “roughly displacing 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS,” carbon capture technology is still in the early stages of development. It is not ready to be used in the scale necessary to curtail the climate crisis. It has however become a diversion used by industry and governments to avoid doing what needs to be done to actually address the climate crisis in a timely way.
I have a confession to make: I just finished eating a double bacon cheeseburger.
I drive a car. I’m writing this on an iPhone. I’ll later edit and submit it to the Times with one of multiple laptops I use.
I love air conditioning and hot showers. I’m a night owl who keeps the lights on until the wee hours of the morning. If I had the chance, I would love to hop on an airplane and travel to just about anywhere in the world.
I’m also a climate change activist.
Contrary to popular belief, most of us advocating for a habitable planet are not solitary hermits living in zen monasteries who’ve learned to produce our own food through photosynthesis. A few of us are, sure, but those folks are definitely in the minority. And yet somehow there’s this idea among many that being a part of the system we’re trying to change automatically invalidates the work we do.
Earlier this week I was called a “Hypocrite!” (explanation point) by a stranger online for my support of the Green New Deal. The conversation we were engaged in didn’t actually have anything to do with climate change. Rather, I’d made a comment on a wholly unrelated topic, and the apoplectic gentleman in question evidently saw fit to dig through my Facebook profile, where he uncovered my dastardly support for the GND.
And so this lovely individual denounced me as a “communist useful idiot,” and told me to “park my car, turn off my gas and electricity, and smash my phone.”
Let’s set aside the fact that the Green New Deal is specifically designed to help us preserve such comforts of modernity without totally annihilating the biosphere we depend on to live. As far as this gentleman was concerned, the fact that I was using or had ever used a single amp of electricity was enough to totally disqualify me from advocating for solutions to one of the greatest existential threats ever faced by our species.
I’ve frankly just about slashed the word “hypocrite” from my lexicon altogether at this point. It’s become so casually hurled to and from every direction across the political spectrum that it’s become almost meaningless. With the possible exception of a few supernatural religious deities, no one who’s ever subscribed to any philosophy or ideology has ever done so perfectly, or without contradiction. We’re human beings, and we’re flawed. The only people who believe that that’s a valid reason not to try and improve the world we live in, are the ones who have zero actual interest in things getting better.
I’ve met some truly incredible people during my time in the climate movement. A lot of them do far better than I do at walking the talk on sustainable living. But none of them are perfect.
For crying out loud, Greta Thunberg once crossed the Atlantic Ocean on a carbon neutral sailboat in order to attend a climate conference without contributing to air travel emissions. She’s basically a climate saint, and still some merry band of inquisitors managed to track down a photo of this teenage girl eating from single-use plastic food containers once in her life, and acted like it was proof that she was some kind of deceitful charlatan.
There truly is no such thing as a perfect climate activist. Honestly, just about every night I go to bed feeling like I’ve failed at doing what needs to be done, and every morning I wake up, determined to do better.
You can either decide to accept your flaws and realize that the only moral choice is to fight for this planet, however imperfectly, or you can sit on the sidelines, gleefully criticizing those who dare to try and improve things.
I know which of these two paths I need to be on. Do you?
Find Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action on the following social media:
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Corner: The kids are alright
Jun 19, 2021
Angie Iafrate
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
Teach your children well. This is sound advice to which we can all sing along thanks to 1970s folk rock, but speaking as both a parent and a former high school teacher, I have also seen time and again that for whatever and however we teach our children, they often teach us more and better if we make an effort to see the world from their vantage point.
As the Engagement and Program Coordinator for Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, reading the dozens of essays written by local high school youth for our Earth Day essay contest demonstrated this once again to be true. There are many young people right here in the Mid-Ohio Valley who acknowledge the reality of climate change and are willing to thoughtfully engage with the problem in the quest for solutions. Here are a few ways in which they impressed us with their essay submissions about carbon footprint reduction and a lesson or two that they taught us along the way.
First, it is notable that our young people are willing to openly and respectfully converse with friends, family, and neighbors about climate change, including those who may be neutral or even adverse to the topic. Not only are they willing, but a common theme running throughout the essays was their insistence that this conversation is necessary to building the awareness that precedes action and solutions.
Our first place essayist, a sophomore from Warren Local, also acknowledged that it is unrealistic to expect one’s environmental message to always fall on enthusiastic ears, but she demonstrated an admirable willingness to continue educating others, regardless. Offering a metaphor to teach us undeterred patience when encountering what appears to be disinterest, she writes, “Just because you plant a seed doesn’t mean it will grow; however, some seeds need to winter before they can sprout.”
Second, our young people demonstrate in their essays an ability to self-reflect and then consider where they might make changes in their own daily habits. They do not take new ideas that contradict their old ones as a personal affront, but approach them with a mindset of opportunity, recognizing a chance to make a positive impact. At the same time, they are realistic and honest. They know that there are limits imposed by geography, availability of resources, and even just by modern life that make it difficult or impossible for any one person to always follow every climate-friendly recommendation of which they are aware. Regardless, they refrain from despair or harsh judgment, and proceed with earnest intention toward a solution.
Third, while they are certainly willing to reflect on how personal choices affect one’s impact on climate and the environment as a whole, as we would all be wise to do, our young people also think critically about the role of systems and institutions in this global crisis. For example, our third place writer, a junior from Waterford High School, opines that a popular narrative in discussions about curbing carbon emissions places the onus disproportionately upon the average individual, while the role and responsibilities of a powerful and wealthy fossil fuel industry are meanwhile largely ignored. It can be inferred that for as long as we leave out this piece of the puzzle, we are destined to never solve it.
Along these lines, our second place finalist, a senior from Ritchie County, adds that while “personal initiative is noble and helpful, real change requires collaboration.” That is, small actions we take in our daily lives certainly matter, but they alone are not going to solve the problem. He makes note of political importance, as well, suggesting that the power of our vote and who we choose as our leaders supersedes the impact of our personal environmentalism. In short, young people lead us to the idea that our collective voices must also be used to compel economic and political systems to do their part.
There is another line from classic rock that comes to mind as I reflect on our recent essay submissions: “The kids are alright.” When it comes to our thoughtful teenage writers, I can’t help but agree. I encourage the grown-ups — myself included — to follow the lead of concerned youth on climate. If we do, they will indeed teach us well, and the planet we inhabit may just turn out alright, too.
***
Angie Iafrate is the Engagement and Program Coordinator with Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action focusing on youth programs and outreach.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Corner – Remembering the value of trees
Local columns
Jun 12, 2021
Linda Eve Seth
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
My mother, a wise and unconventional woman, was in many ways far ahead of her peers and her times. Back in the 1950s, our urban N.J. home was surrounded by lovely flower gardens, lush greenery, huge shade trees, and numerous fruit trees. (No one else in our neighborhood had fruit trees!)
The interior of our home was filled with houseplants. I used to marvel and complain that every room except the bathrooms had numerous plants on the tabletops, window sills … virtually every flat surface. When asked about the presence of all that greenery, my mother would explain that plants improve the air quality and it was a good idea to have plants in our home, and trees all around us, because they helped us stay healthy. At the time, it seemed like a bizarre notion.
My mom has been gone for several years, but if she were alive, I am sure she would have been quick to jump on the climate change /environmental awareness bandwagon. It turns out she was right: PLANTS IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
No existing, human-made air filtration system has the ability to create oxygen. Oxygen is a critical element of clean and healthy air. Indoor plants create oxygen. Plants clean the air through the process of photosynthesis. We humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide; plants do the opposite. During the process of photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we breathe.
Studies from NASA reveal that plant-filled rooms contain 50 to 60 percent fewer airborne molds and bacteria than rooms without plants. And a cleaner environment is just the start. An NBC news report pointed out that “indoor plants improve concentration and productivity, reduce stress levels and boost your mood.”
Consider now — TREES.
Trees create a peaceful, aesthetically pleasing environment. Trees increase our quality of life by bringing natural elements and wildlife habitats into urban and suburban settings.
Trees improve water quality, and reduce flooding and erosion. A tree’s leafy canopy catches precipitation before it reaches the ground, allowing some of it to gently drip and the rest to evaporate. Tree roots hold soil in place, reducing erosion. In these ways, trees lessen the force of storms and reduce the amount of runoff into sewers.
Urban trees provide a cost-effective solution to improving air quality in our cities. The pores on the underside of tree leaves are effective in removing sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic carbon. The leaves’ upper surface intercepts airborne particulates, contributing even more to a healthy urban environment. It was estimated that trees in Chicago, for example, remove approximately 234 tons of particulates annually.
And trees give back even more. Remember photosynthesis and the fact that it releases oxygen? Studies reveal that one mature tree yields enough oxygen for four people EVERY DAY. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people.”
Trees contribute to their environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife. Trees, shrubs, and turf also filter air by removing dust and absorbing other pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. After trees intercept unhealthy particles, rain washes them to the ground.
Trees control climate by moderating the effects of the sun, rain and wind. Trees lower the air temperature and reduce the heat intensity of the greenhouse effect by maintaining low levels of carbon dioxide.
Trees mitigate the impact of climate change, and plants do, indeed, improve the quality of life. As usual, my mother was right.
***
Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M.Ed., is a mother, grandmother and concerned citizen. She is a member of MOVCA.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Corner – It’s time to THRIVE
Local columns
Jun 5, 2021
Eric Engle
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
To quote Johan Rockstrom, Vice-Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, “An emergency is calculated by risk divided by time. Risk is probability multiplied by impact. Scientifically, we now have a very unfortunate set of data in front of us. We know that the likely impact on humans of climate disruption, mass extinction and air pollution is very, very high indeed. The probability is also uncomfortably high. This adds up to a very high risk. Now divide that by time. We have unequivocal evidence that we have entered a decisive decade. If we have any chance to prevent the loss of more than a million species, we must halt biodiversity loss now, not in 20 or 30 years. If we want to have any chance of keeping global warming to 1.5C [centigrade above preindustrial levels], we need to cut emissions by half over the next nine years.”
One of the best, or at least most immediate, shots we have in the U.S. at beginning to tackle the anthropogenic (human-caused) global climate crisis and related crises is infrastructure legislation now being devised, revised and debated in the U.S. Senate. This effort must coincide with the creation of a post-pandemic 21st Century economy that allows the American people to thrive.
Thrive–you should keep that word in mind. Why? Because the THRIVE (Transform, Heal and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy) Act is our best shot at tackling climate and biodiversity as well as economic and public health crises starting now. The THRIVE Act would create 50,000 jobs in the first full year of the program and sustain high levels of employment throughout the next decade. The program would invest $5.2 billion per year for a decade into West Virginia in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency, infrastructure, electric vehicles, agriculture and land restoration, and the care economy, public health and the postal service. Economic renewal investments with strong labor standards ensure that jobs will not only increase, but that the quality of jobs will also improve.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and her Republican colleagues aren’t taking these goals seriously. They want to ignore the care economy entirely and they fail to take seriously and adequately address the climate and related crises we face. They miss the mark on a 21st Century economy centered around renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable agriculture and development that creates thousands of good-paying union jobs.
Republicans can’t even meet President Biden halfway on his American Jobs Plan. They want to talk about roads, bridges, water systems and broadband, which are all extremely important and included in both the American Jobs Plan and the THRIVE Act but focusing on just these is myopic.
Now is the time to go big and be bold. West Virginians are tired of just surviving, at best, while facing an addiction epidemic, the fallout of a global COVID-19 pandemic, and losing more population than any other state in the Union. We need leaders with vision and the tenacity to deliver. We’re tired of excuses and watching politicians check their stock portfolios and check in with industry lobbyists and deep pocket campaign contributors before they decide whether or not to listen to their constituents.
According to findings from a Data for Progress poll conducted May 7-11, two-thirds of voters are concerned about the impacts of climate change on their communities. That is all the mandate that the U.S. Congress and the White House need to take action! Tell Sen. Joe Manchin III and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito to act today and support the THRIVE Act, or at the very least go as big and as bold with the American Jobs Plan as they can possibly go. It’s time for West Virginia and the rest of the country to thrive!
***
Eric Engle is Chairman of the not-for-profit volunteer organization Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, Board Member for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Co-Chairman of the Sierra Club of West Virginia Chapter’s Executive Committee.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Emissions – What level?
Jun 5, 2021
Warren Peascoe
editorial@newsandsentinel.com
What is the proper amount of emissions to allow from industrial and chemical plants and how are emissions traded for jobs?
I was appalled when I compared what West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection expected to allow for the proposed West Virginia Methanol plant in Pleasants County, near the Ohio River, with what was achieved 30 years ago for a new plastics plant in New York.
About 1990, GE built a new plant in New York State. As I remember the Geloy plant yearly produced 30 million pounds of plastic and only one pound of emissions. The entire plant was inside a new building. There was a continuous air monitoring system, which sampled air at several critical locations. If the monitor detected more than 1 part per million of acrylonitrile, an alarm sounded and corrective action was taken.
Contrast that with the methanol plant under review by the WV DEP.
According to a Gazette-Mail article April 30, 2021:
“The proposed facility has the potential to emit 91 tons of carbon monoxide, 92 tons of nitrogen oxides (poisonous, highly reactive gases), 54 combined tons of three different kinds of particulate matter, and 11 combined tons of the known or probable human carcinogens formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene, according to West Virginia Methanol’s permit application.”
West Virginia Methanol will emit hundreds of tons of emissions compared to one pound of emissions achieved 30 years ago at the GE Geloy plant in Selkirk, N.Y. These emissions do not even include methanol but only byproducts of the process.
Since none of these separate byproducts individually exceeds the 100 tons per year required by the state to be considered a “major” emitter, no emissions modeling is required. One regulated stream will be 92 percent of a “major” emitter and a second will be 90 percent. When added together the two streams clearly exceed 100 tons. This appears to be a clever attempt to build the first of several possible plants and never be considered a “major” emitter.
I am familiar with butadiene, one chemical byproduct to be emitted by the methanol plant, which I used as a student and at GE Plastics, Washington plant. The plant used barge loads.
To compare the butadiene emissions from a plant that used massive amounts as a raw material to emissions of the proposed methanol plant that produced butadiene only as a byproduct, I looked at the WV DEP public records for the SABIC plant, formerly GE Plastics. For 2014 SABIC reported 0.5 tons per year of butadiene emissions. The methanol plant will be permitted to emit 11 tons of a mixture of four suspected carcinogens, one of which is butadiene. If all the mixture is butadiene, then the new construction will be permitted to emit 22 times more butadiene as a byproduct than the SABIC plant, which used butadiene as a feed stock, actually emitted in 2014.
I only found the 0.5 ton of butadiene after hours reading public records for the SABIC plant. Most appeared to be 60 pages of yearly documentation that correct procedures were followed. None had any numerical data about what was emitted. Only one Certified Emission Statement dated 7-11-2014 actually listed data. A Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Worksheet, filled out by hand, indicated 0.5 tons of butadiene was included in the combined total. The total also contained 3.7 tons of acrylonitrile, 2.72 tons of cumene, 3.87 of methyl methacrylate, and 22.18 tons of styrene plus other minor emissions. In 2014 SABIC reported emissions of 34.06 tons of combined Hazardous Air Pollutants.
In my opinion:
1) All emissions from the proposed WV Methanol plant should be added together in determining if the emitter is “major,” especially since two of the byproduct emission streams are each over 90 percent of the “major” 100 ton limit. In addition the emissions of methanol should be included in the “major” limit calculation.
2) Emission modeling for the methanol plant should be completed, even if it is not legally required.
3) Continuous fence line monitoring should be standard for all new plant construction or major modifications. If this is not done by the plant owner, DEP should have mobile monitors that are periodically placed near the fence line and the data made public. The public should be able to monitor anywhere outside the plant boundaries.
4) Best available technology should be used for new construction and major modifications.
5) Building several small plants as a substitute for one large plant to circumvent the emission requirements for the single large plant should not be allowed.
6) Annual emissions for each plant and each chemical should be easily accessible to the general public. This would lead to a clearer public understanding of the trade off between the health hazards of too lax and the economic hazard of too restrictive legislation.
***
Warren Peascoe is a Ph.D. chemist, retired from Uniroyal and GE Plastics,
Last Updated: April 28, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Suggested Readings For June 2021
May 2021 MOVCA Selected Media Postings
Compiled by Cindy Taylor
Appearing on-line in the Charleston Gazette-Mail:
Friday May 28, 2021 Energy and Environment News Article by Mike Tony, Staff writer
“Millions of ratepayer and tax base dollars at stake with hearings upcoming in AEP cases”
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/energy_and_environment/millions-of-ratepayer-and-tax-base-dollars-at-stake-with-hearings-upcoming-in-aep-cases/article_c5bd2d34-2e50-5f63-baa0-37615378e64a.html
Tuesday May 25, 2021 Energy and Environment News Article by Mike Tony, Staff writer
“WV supporters of federal climate infrastructure urge passage as leaders reach crossroads”
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/energy_and_environment/wv-supporters-of-federal-climate-infrastructure-urge-passage-as-leaders-reach-crossroads/article_385a2407-aeff-5317-825c-79f997877d2d.html
Tuesday May 24, 2021 Energy and Environment News Article by Mike Tony, Staff writer
“WV leaders balk at International Energy Agency call for no new fossil fuel investments”
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/energy_and_environment/wv-leaders-balk-at-international-energy-agency-call-for-no-new-fossil-fuel-investments/article_6574cd0d-0e6e-511b-9f2e-23be27a94567.html
Saturday May 8, 2021 Energy and Environment News Article by Mike Tony, Staff writer
“WV’s leaders heading pushback against Biden climate policy”
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/energy_and_environment/wvs-leaders-heading-pushback-against-biden-climate-policy/article_d7166176-f50d-5002-80a6-e9f740070694.html
Wednesday May 5, 2021 Energy and Environment News Article by Mike Tony, Staff writer
“Emissions concerns, job hopes share center stage during meeting on proposed Pleasants County methanol facility”
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/energy_and_environment/emissions-concerns-job-hopes-share-center-stage-during-meeting-on-proposed-pleasants-county-methanol-facility/article_012336dd-cb42-55aa-a8b4-14a0e8056f21.html
Appearing in The Times Leader (Martins Ferry, OH)
May 15, 2021 Letter-to-the-Editor by Ben Hunkler, Ohio Concerned River Residents, Bridgeport, OH
“Frack waste barging puts our water at risk”
https://www.timesleaderonline.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2021/05/frack-waste-barging-puts-our-water-at-risk/
May 8, 2021 Column by Jill A. Hunkler, Barnesville, OH. Member of Concerned Ohio River Residents
“Elected officials should stand against fossil fuels”
https://www.timesleaderonline.com/opinion/columns/2021/05/elected-officials-should-stand-against-fossil-fuels/
Appearing on-line in The Bargain Hunter (Weekly news magazine serving Ohio Counties: Holmes, Tuscarawas, Wayne, and the surrounding area. Stark, Medina, Summit and Cuyahoga):
May 22, 2021 Column by Dr. Randi Pokladnik
“Valley was a hotbed of polluting industries”
https://thebargainhunter.com/news/col-randi-pokladnik/valley-was-a-hotbed-of-polluting-industries
May 6, 2021 Column by Dr. Randi Pokladnik
“Laws haven’t helped control trash along roads”
https://thebargainhunter.com/news/col-randi-pokladnik/laws-havent-helped-control-trash-along-roads
Appearing on-line on Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC) or Hoots and Hollers(blog)
May 25, 2021 Feature about OVEC’s open letter to President Biden (MOVCA co-signed)
“To President Joe Biden From West Virginians”
May 25, 2021 Article by Dr. Randi Pokladnik
“Fertility on the Brink”
May 24, 2021 Article by Dr. Randi Pokladnik
“Carbon Capture Technology: Just Another False Solution”
Appearing on-line on West Virginians for Energy Freedom https://www.energyfreedomwv.org :
May 3, 2021 News Article
“WV becomes 29th state to offer Power Purchase Agreements”
https://www.energyfreedomwv.org/updates/2021/5/3/wv-becomes-29th-state-to-offer-power-purchase-agreements
Appearing on-line on Ohio River Valley Institute https://ohiorivervalleyinstitute.org :
May 26, 2021 Article by Sean O’Leary
“Jobs and equitable transition: bridging the chasm between rhetoric and action”
May 25, 2021 Article by Autumn Long and Ted Boettner
“American Jobs Plan Accelerate Solar Power in West Virginia”
May 18, 2021 Article by Sean O’Leary
“ ‘What’s the alternative?’: Answering the hardest question asked by workers and communities that feel threatened by energy transition”
May 7, 2021 Article by Ted Boettner
“Eliminate West Virginia Met Coal Subsidy to Assist Dislocated Coal Workers”
Appearing on-line on WV Public Broadcasting and WOUB (PBS):
May 26, 2021 Energy & Environment News Article by Eric Douglas
“W.Va. Communities Receive Nearly $3 Million in Brownfields Assessment and Clean-up Funding from EPA”
https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2021-05-26/w-va-communities-receive-nearly-3-million-in-brownfields-assessment-and-clean-up-funding-from-epa
May 13, 2021 Energy & Environment News Article by Eric Douglas – interview with Chris Walter (text and audio)
“Research Reveals Clean Air Makes Stronger Forests”
https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2021-05-13/research-reveals-clean-air-makes-stronger-forests
May 3, 2021 Energy & Environment News Article by Curtis Tate, Katie Myers
“Power Switch: Solar is Heating Up In The Ohio Valley”
https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2021-05-03/power-switch-solar-is-heating-up-in-the-ohio-valley
RESEARCH/Resources/Related articles or media
Available On-line on Policy Matters Ohio https://www.policymattersohio.org
Sustainable Communities Research & Policy
Sustainable Communities : Investments in transit, renewable energy, conservation, and other smart solutions that create jobs and support communities.
See https://www.policymattersohio.org/research-policy/sustainable-communities
Available on-line on West Virginia New Jobs Coalition https://www.newjobswv.org
Link for THRIVE Jobs Report for WV
Posted May 4, 2021 video of April 10, 2021 live-streamed event
“Jammin’ For Jobs -Full Clean Cut Video”
Musicians, artists, community leaders and citizens from across state came together to demand better jobs in WV and for Congress to support the THRIVE AC
Available on-line on ReImagine Appalachia https://reimagineappalachia.org
Check out resources available under Local Grassroots at https://reimagineappalachia.org/local/grassroots/
And resources under Local Officials at https://reimagineappalachia.org/local/officials/
Find the Blue Print and Jobs Studies Policy Briefs for WV, PA, and OH (by the PERI Institute) for Reimagine Appalachia at https://reimagineappalachia.org/resources/
MAY on-line selected EVENTS:
Tuesday May 25, 2021 Zoom Public event hosted by Buckeye Environmental Network & Tackling the A-Z Impacts of Plastic, Ohio River Guardians, Ohio Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival; & UUJO: Unitarian Universalist Justice Ohio
“S.O.S. Learn & Act to Save Ohioans from Radioactive Brine Spreading”
Zoom event about two dangerous bills, H.B. 282 and S.B. 171, that threaten Ohioans health from radioactive oil and gas waste brine
Thursday, May 20, 2021 6:30 pm. Virtual Conference hosted by Concerned Ohio River Residents, League of Women Voters, and the Climate Reality Project. Supported by MOVCA as May public program.
“A Better Vision for the Valley” Recording of conference posted to YouTube on May 21, 2021 at this link:
This second conference (first in May 2019) is to brainstorm sustainable economic development potential in our communities. Conference speakers, experts and entrepreneurs: Sean O’Leary, Ohio River Valley Institute; Annie Rouse, Think Hempy Thoughts and Anavil Market; Jeffrey Morris, Roxby Development; and Vincent DeGeorge, Grow Ohio Valley.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021 7 p.m. Zoom Webinar hosted by Ohio Poor People’s Campaign & Our Voices Together
“Ohio Environmental Issues – Their Connection to Regressive Policies and Their Impact”
Discussion about Ohio’s Environmental Issues – Their Connection to Regressive Policies, Voter Suppression, Anti-Protest Bills and the 5 Systemic Evils. Guest speakers included: Rev. Joan Vanbecelaere- UUJOP; Christy Stonebaker Martinez – InterReligious Taskforce on Central America; Guy Jones- Miami Valley Council for Native Americans; Jill Hunkler – Concerned Ohio River Residents; Justin Thompson – Ashtabula County Water Watch. Zoom Registration required:
May 19, 4PM & May 20, 2021 8 PM Zoom Webinar promoted by WV New Jobs Coalition https://www.newjobswv.org
Green New Deal Storytelling Training “#TimeToThrive Stories Training”
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYqd-yorDkvEtI1YwbhS6aQB-UL7-gt28Wk
Storytelling for action training & make a video in support of the THRIVE Act for climate, jobs, & justice
Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4-5 p.m. Zoom – Panel and community discussion hosted by WV Interfaith Power & Light
“Standing Up for Appalachia: Bringing Jobs and Economic Justice to West Virginia”
Learn about federal and regional economic initiatives such as the RECLAIM Act, ReImagine Appalachia, the THRIVE Agenda, and the American Jobs Plan. . . and how you can help. Registration required.
ACTION LINKS:
Available on-line at West Virginia Rivers:
May 27, 2021 WV Rivers News Article by Kathleen Tyner (Action Link provided)
“Action alert: Let WV’s Senators Know You’re Depending on Them for Critical Infrastructure Legislation”
May 27, 2021 WV Rivers News Article by Kathleen Tyner (Action Link provided)
“WV Rivers News: Mountain Valley Pipeline Stream Crossing Permit, WV in the Federal Policy Spotlight”
Urgent: Your Comments Needed on MVP’s Request to Cross Streams- Act by May 28
Opportunity to submit comments to Army Corp of Engineers
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: It’s time for us to reimagine Appalachia
May 29, 2021
George Banziger
Parkersburg News and Sentinel
People in the Appalachian region have for generations assumed that good-paying union jobs had to involve the sacrifice of their health–even their lives–in extractive industries such as coal. New research and new projects indicate that it does not have to be this way. There are good jobs in a reimagined Appalachia, such as those involved with capping abandoned oil and gas wells, modernizing the electricity grid, redesigning buildings and industry for energy efficiency, regenerative agriculture, clean and efficient manufacturing, a sustainable transportation system, energy storage, repurposing coal-fired power plants, and creating pathways and training programs for low-wage workers.
The officially recognized area of Appalachia, which is administered by the Appalachian Regional Commission, is comprised geographically of the area from northern Alabama and Georgia to the southern tier of New York State. It includes 13 states; West Virginia is the only state that is entirely encapsulated in the region. For decades this region has been associated with high unemployment, low educational achievement, high poverty rates, population decline, and more recently opioid abuse.
While the grip of the fossil-fuel industry in Appalachia has been quite firm in the 20th Century, this grasp has recently loosened. As coal has been recognized as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and as other sources of energy like natural gas and renewables like wind and solar have shown market advantages, coal has been in an inexorable decline. Energy companies themselves are shifting away from coal, as coal-fired power plants in Appalachia and around the country are shut down. Many in the region and in the Congress have supported the idea that long-term support, in the form of wages and benefits as well as job training, needs to be provided for those in the coal industry who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
The natural gas business provides a more affordable and less polluting source of energy than coal, and some of its advocates have argued that the industrial practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a promising source of jobs and economic development for the Appalachian region and specifically the Ohio Valley. So far, this vision has not been realized. “Frackalachia” is the term used to describe the region within Appalachia where fracking for oil and natural gas (mostly the latter) takes place. As noted by the Ohio River Valley Institute, the boom in the shale-gas industry provided an overall benefit to the U.S. economy but did not provide any increase in jobs, population, or economic development in the region. Only 20 cents per dollar found its way into the local economy according to this study, and during this shale-gas boom jobs were in decline.
Washington County, Ohio, has more to offer for a reimagined Appalachia than to serve as the trash heap for fracking waste; the county has one of the largest number of injection wells in the state for pumping radioactive and toxic fracking waste into the ground from Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
There are already projects in the region for a reimagined Appalachia. In Wheeling, W.Va., there are greenhouses and vertically integrated businesses in regenerative agriculture, producing locally grown crops for local consumption in facilities like greenhouses built in abandoned factories. The Solvay plant in Marietta has combined with DTE Energy for a CHP (combined heat and power) project, saving 300 jobs at Solvay and 50 at neighboring American Styrenes. Battery manufacturing for the electric vehicle industry has emerged in eastern Ohio. New Jobs Appalachia is a local effort to spark new thinking that can seize the opportunities in a renewable economy rather than turning our backs on them.
The community of Centralia, Wash., is a model of repurposed infrastructure for economic development of the 21st Century. Formally a site of a coal mine, employing 600 workers and a coal-fired power plant with 370 workers, Centralia reimagined itself with GDP gains at twice the rate of the U.S. as well as population growth. This growth was achieved through three initiatives: a weatherization fund for energy-efficiency upgrades, an economic community development fund using local labor, such as HVAC, lighting contractors, and an energy technology fund for clean energy generation. These are 21st Century businesses that provide local jobs with good wages and benefits and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and that should serve as a compelling model for our region of Appalachia.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Repurposed – Solar energy project shows great promise
Editorials
May 29, 2021
An experiment is in the works in southwest Virginia and Tennessee, that might have far-reaching benefits for the rest of coal country. A Nature Conservancy preserve that spans parts of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee includes approximately 550 acres of deforested mineland, for which developers are working on a large-scale solar project. According to Energy News Network, the project is expected to be generating up to 75 megawatts of solar energy within the next two to three years.
To put that in perspective, the Pleasants Power Station near Belmont, W.Va., has a capacity of 1,300 MW; the Mitchell Power Plant near Moundsville is 1,633 MW. Still, 75 MW is well above the level needed to be labeled a utility-scale project, and the work on the Cumberland Forest property could become a model for repurposing mine lands, creating renewable energy jobs and finding out just how much solar facilities can be scaled up to meet energy needs.
“We can do things that are good for nature and people,” Brad Kreps, director of the conservancy’s Clinch Valley Program in Abingdon, Va., told Energy News Network. “A mission of conservation and economic recovery can be compatible. These two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive.”
Developers are still working on the project, but should it come to fruition, the results should help inform energy and development policy in a region working so desperately to diversify its economy, do right by the planet AND preserve quality of life for families who have depended on coal for generations.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Which option do we choose?
Parkersburg News and Sentinel
Letters to the editor
May 22, 2021
Aaron Dunbar
I was quite interested to read “Honest environmental talks,” Christina Myer’s May 15 column in the News and Sentinel.
Myer’s piece deals with the subject of rare earth metals used in various sources of renewable energy, and the potential hazard of “trading one kind of destructive extraction industry for another.”
Broadly speaking, I do agree with Myer’s point that there are no easy answers to the challenges we face. Lithium, a key ingredient in the manufacture of electric car batteries, for instance, can be so environmentally destructive that it’s sometimes referred to as “white oil,” and is frequently mined in hellish conditions through what can only be described as slave labor.
On the other hand, electric vehicles still remain cleaner than their gasoline-powered alternatives overall, and even as I write this there is serious research being conducted into powering EV’s without the use of any rare earth metals whatsoever.
In her column, Myer calls for a “more honest, more difficult discussion” about climate change. And I respect that. What, then, might such a discussion look like?
For starters, it must begin with a few very basic, incontrovertible facts: climate change is real, it’s driven by fossil fuel extraction, and it will cause civilization as we know it to collapse should we fail to transition away from fossil fuels at whiplash-inducing speeds.
From here, as I see it, there are four fundamental paths we can choose to take:
1. Do nothing, continue burning fossil fuels, and allow civilization to collapse.
2. Trade one form of exploitation for another, and preserve the Global North and capitalist extremism by plundering the Global South as we have been, in order to maintain our affluent lifestyles.
3. Find a way of transitioning to renewable energy that ensures materials are ethically and sustainably sourced, at the pace and scale necessary to avert catastrophic, runaway warming.
And 4., probably the most radical option of all to most readers: accept Kenneth Goulding’s sentiment that “Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist,” and embrace the reduction and degrowth of Global North economies.
We can choose to like it or not, but this is the hand we’ve been dealt, thanks in overwhelming part to the misinformation and delay tactics of the fossil fuel industry.
I wholeheartedly back Ms. Myer’s call for engaging in difficult conversations about climate change. The bigger issue, to me, is whether or not we’re mature enough as a society to accept the difficult answers we’re likely to be presented with.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Corner: Carbon capture sequestration technology won’t solve crisis
May 22, 2021 Parkersburg News and Sentinel
Randi Pokladnik
In its current state, carbon capture is another false promise when it comes to addressing the urgent need to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. The very industry that is a main contributor to climate change can now profit from tax breaks and government funding being directed at Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) projects. A 2019 report by the Center for International Environmental Law, “Fuel to Fire,” states, “It is not surprising that the fossil fuel industry has invested and is investing heavily in the technologies that would render a transition from fossil fuels less urgent.” Carbon capture is one of those technologies.
First used in 1972 in Chevron’s Terrell Natural Gas plant in Texas, carbon capture can remove carbon dioxide from exhaust fumes of industrial facilities such as coal and gas power plants or from the surrounding air. There are several techniques that have been used to capture CO2. These include: absorbing it with a sponge-like material; separating it with membranes; or cooling and condensing it using a cryogenic process. These processes all require high energy inputs, and once captured, the carbon dioxide is either stored or used. Storage involves the gas being transported to locations where it is injected deep underground into saline deposits or rock strata.
Small amounts of carbon dioxide have been used as a feedstock for chemicals or fuels, to distill and carbonate beverages, or for use in greenhouses to help promote plant growth. Once again there are substantial costs involved to transport the gas, and carbon dioxide captured this way can quickly re-enter the atmosphere. According to a recent paper in Nature Climate Change, “the tonnage of CO2 humanity emits simply dwarfs the tonnage of carbon-based products it consumes.”
The majority of carbon dioxide from CCS is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). During this procedure, pressurized CO2 is pumped into old oil field wells to help force out any remaining oil deposits. The majority of the world’s 21 large-scale CCS plants are located in the USA and Canada, and all but five sell or send their carbon dioxide to facilities involved in enhanced oil recovery. The carbon dioxide removed by power plants can be sold to other companies that use it to help “bolster” production of older oil fields.
There are many economic, social, and environmental problems associated with using CCS for oil recovery. Using the carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery does not guarantee the gas is permanently removed from the atmosphere. Eventually it is released back to the atmosphere as it leaks from the wells and fissures. Additionally, it enables more oil to be extracted thus continuing our reliance on fossil fuels and contributing to climate change.
In the CIEL report “Fuel to Fire,” Exxon stated that it had a working interest in one quarter of the world’s total carbon capture and storage (CCS) capacity, and Shell is involved with four current CCS projects. Chevron has invested $75 million in CCS research in the past ten years, while BP is a current sponsor of the CO2 Capture Project. There are economic incentives that are encouraging fossil fuel industries to champion the use of CCS. These include government programs as well as tax incentives.
In 2008, a program was set up to give tax credits to companies using CCS. According to section 45 Q of the tax code, companies could get tax credits for capturing carbon dioxide and doing one of three things with it: dispose of it in an underground secure geological site, use it for enhanced oil recovery, or use it in a commercial process. In 2018, the tax credits for CCS were raised to $50 per metric ton of CO2 from the previous $20 per ton, and credits for carbon dioxide used in EOR were raised from $20 to $35 per ton.
Estimates based on IRS records show that Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits using this law. There is a requirement that companies claiming the tax credit also commit to a monitoring program through the EPA. A new industry group, Energy Advance Center, which represents companies like Exxon, have lobbied to do away with monitoring programs that would ensure CCS emissions did not escape back into the atmosphere.
Additionally, CCS research projects have received substantial amounts of government funding. According to the Department of Energy, CCS research projects received $110 million in 2019, $72 million in 2020, and as of April of 2021 received $75 million.
Recently, U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Capito introduced legislation to augment the tax credits for CCS under 45Q and 48A, tax credits for coal companies using CCS. One facet of the bill would grant the same tax treatment to CCS as is currently offered to wind and solar projects. It would also allow for direct payments of carbon capture credits. No surprise that many of the Carbon Capture Utilization and Tax Credit Amendment Act supporters are from states heavily influenced by the fossil fuel industry (West Virginia, Wyoming and North Dakota).
Finally, there are issues of safety involved in CCS. Once the carbon dioxide is captured it can be used or stored but it also must be transported. This involves pipelines. In 2019, in Yazo, Miss., a 24-inch carbon-dioxide containing underground pipeline ruptured. Over 300 people were evacuated and 46 people were treated at hospitals. The concentration of carbon dioxide was high enough to cause gas-powered car engines to stop. First responders said some people were unconscious while others wandered around like zombies.
Unlike solar and wind energy, which according to Clean Technica are “roughly displacing 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS,” carbon capture technology is still in the early stages of development. It is not ready to be used in the scale necessary to curtail the climate crisis. It has however become a diversion used by industry and governments to avoid doing what needs to be done to actually address the climate crisis in a timely way.
Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11
Climate Change and the H-Word
Marietta Times
Letters to the Editor
May 19, 2021
Aaron Dunbar
I have a confession to make: I just finished eating a double bacon cheeseburger.
I drive a car. I’m writing this on an iPhone. I’ll later edit and submit it to the Times with one of multiple laptops I use.
I love air conditioning and hot showers. I’m a night owl who keeps the lights on until the wee hours of the morning. If I had the chance, I would love to hop on an airplane and travel to just about anywhere in the world.
I’m also a climate change activist.
Contrary to popular belief, most of us advocating for a habitable planet are not solitary hermits living in zen monasteries who’ve learned to produce our own food through photosynthesis. A few of us are, sure, but those folks are definitely in the minority. And yet somehow there’s this idea among many that being a part of the system we’re trying to change automatically invalidates the work we do.
Earlier this week I was called a “Hypocrite!” (explanation point) by a stranger online for my support of the Green New Deal. The conversation we were engaged in didn’t actually have anything to do with climate change. Rather, I’d made a comment on a wholly unrelated topic, and the apoplectic gentleman in question evidently saw fit to dig through my Facebook profile, where he uncovered my dastardly support for the GND.
And so this lovely individual denounced me as a “communist useful idiot,” and told me to “park my car, turn off my gas and electricity, and smash my phone.”
Let’s set aside the fact that the Green New Deal is specifically designed to help us preserve such comforts of modernity without totally annihilating the biosphere we depend on to live. As far as this gentleman was concerned, the fact that I was using or had ever used a single amp of electricity was enough to totally disqualify me from advocating for solutions to one of the greatest existential threats ever faced by our species.
I’ve frankly just about slashed the word “hypocrite” from my lexicon altogether at this point. It’s become so casually hurled to and from every direction across the political spectrum that it’s become almost meaningless. With the possible exception of a few supernatural religious deities, no one who’s ever subscribed to any philosophy or ideology has ever done so perfectly, or without contradiction. We’re human beings, and we’re flawed. The only people who believe that that’s a valid reason not to try and improve the world we live in, are the ones who have zero actual interest in things getting better.
I’ve met some truly incredible people during my time in the climate movement. A lot of them do far better than I do at walking the talk on sustainable living. But none of them are perfect.
For crying out loud, Greta Thunberg once crossed the Atlantic Ocean on a carbon neutral sailboat in order to attend a climate conference without contributing to air travel emissions. She’s basically a climate saint, and still some merry band of inquisitors managed to track down a photo of this teenage girl eating from single-use plastic food containers once in her life, and acted like it was proof that she was some kind of deceitful charlatan.
There truly is no such thing as a perfect climate activist. Honestly, just about every night I go to bed feeling like I’ve failed at doing what needs to be done, and every morning I wake up, determined to do better.
You can either decide to accept your flaws and realize that the only moral choice is to fight for this planet, however imperfectly, or you can sit on the sidelines, gleefully criticizing those who dare to try and improve things.
I know which of these two paths I need to be on. Do you?
Find Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action on the following social media:
Check out our Facebook group and join a conversation
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta