Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Boosting renewable energy use can happen quickly – and reduce harm to low-income people if done thoughtfully


Erin Baker, Professor of Industrial Engineering Applied to Energy Policy, UMass Amherst

Wed, August 10, 2022 
THE CONVERSATION

Offshore wind farms will assist in the renewable energy transition and offset the effects of climate change. Abstract Aerial Art/DigitalVision via Getty Images

With many nations making efforts to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, SciLine interviewed Erin Baker, a professor of industrial engineering and operations at UMass Amherst. Baker discussed the technological, political and regulatory efforts needed for this transition, as well as ways that our fossil fuel-dependent system disproportionately harms poor communities and communities of color.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.

How is our country doing at making the transition to renewable energy?

Erin Baker: There has been amazing technological change over the past 15 years. Offshore wind costs 50% less than it did six years ago. Solar has had a sixfold decrease in costs since 2010. And I think there’s a lot of evidence that technology will adapt and improve if we set the goals and incentives for it.

In terms of policy and regulations, we are moving forward, but we need to be more aggressive. Something that we’re missing and that would be really helpful would be a coherent, federal-level climate policy – whether that is regulatory policy, such as we have for pollution, or a carbon tax or some kind of a cap. The Inflation Reduction Act would be a fantastic starting point if it becomes law.

A good example of something that has been done is President Biden’s move to coordinate and streamline the federal approval process for offshore wind. There are seven federal agencies involved, and having them all separate and moving at their own pace was really difficult for offshore wind energy developers. So Biden has coordinated that, and that’s fantastic. But there are tens of local and state-level agencies and processes that developers still have to go through. It would be really great if we could figure out ways to coordinate and streamline those.

How does our current energy system disproportionately harm poor communities and communities of color?

Erin Baker: Unfortunately, in a lot of different ways. Polluting facilities tend to be located disproportionally in areas that are low income and home to people of color, which can lead to negative health outcomes. Also, in the Texas blackout last winter that killed around 250 people, some research done by my colleague Jay Tenaja showed that the long blackouts were four times as likely in communities of color as in predominantly white communities. And, unfortunately, the energy transition won’t necessarily be any more equitable.

For example, it’s common for states to subsidize rooftop solar. And this is good, but the people who get the subsidies are people who own roofs with sun shining on them. People who live in apartments and in cities don’t have access to this, and yet they’re paying for the subsidies. We take the money for the subsidies from everyone, including low-income people, and send them mostly to white, wealthy suburbs.

How can injustices in our energy system be rectified?

Erin Baker: There’s obviously no one solution, but there are a couple of categories of things we can do. One thing that would be really helpful would be to collect data. We have very little data about energy equity issues.

We also need to involve and listen to the traditionally marginalized communities that are most affected by the inequities.

What do you think of the federal and state targets set for offshore wind?

Erin Baker: The Biden administration set a target for 30 gigawatts by 2030. That’s an ambitious goal, since in 2019 the entire world had only 30 GW. But it’s growing rapidly, with global capacity at an astounding 56 GW.

Having this goal of 30 gigawatts helps to organize the supply chain – all the pieces that need to get done for this to happen. We need people who know how to install offshore wind farms. We need special ships. We need planning for transmission. Having these goals really helps to organize all that and make sure all these pieces are in place.

What are the environmental costs and benefits of offshore wind?

Erin Baker: Offshore wind is a really promising technology. The ocean has really good wind resources. And it’s near population centers – we have lots of cities up and down the coasts. Because wind energy is carbon-free, it will provide benefits by reducing emissions and reducing costs.

Some of the work I’ve done has shown that there are billions, and maybe even trillions, of dollars of climate value in offshore wind. We lose between US$10 million and $150 million per year per wind farm by delaying them. We really want to keep these large global environmental benefits in mind as we plan. These can be balanced against local environmental costs and benefits, as well as other factors, like jobs.

In terms of local environmental benefits, when you build an offshore wind farm, the stuff underneath the water ends up creating an artificial reef and actually increasing sea life in that area, which is a benefit.

Negatively, they interfere with bird migrations. Birds don’t actually fly into the wind turbines that much. They fly around them. But if there are a lot of wind farms, that’s a lot of flying around, and that can be hard on the birds. And some animals, like right whales, can get caught in mooring lines if we have floating wind turbines. So, there are local environmental costs. What we need to do is balance these with the global benefits from addressing climate change.

Are you hopeful about our ability to address climate change?

Erin Baker: I am optimistic that we can solve climate change, because humans are very inventive. My work on technological change has shown that once we have a goal or incentive, we tend to improve technologies much faster than we ever predicted. So I think we can be ambitious. We can aim for net-zero by 2030 instead of 2050. And we can solve climate change while at the same time stimulating innovation, fueling growth and increasing quality of life. But we have to set these goals. To access the benefits of the energy transition, we really need to act boldly and decisively.

Watch the full interview to hear more about what’s required for a just, renewable energy transition.


SciLine is a free service based at the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Erin Baker, UMass Amherst.


Read more:

An expert on trends in gun sales and gun violence in pandemic America

Affordable housing – in pandemic times, what works and what doesn’t?

Erin Baker receives funding from NSF and Sloan Foundation.
Climate change reversing 900 years of cooling in Gulf of Maine



Gianna Melillo
Wed, August 10, 2022

In an effort to chronicle changing water temperatures in the Gulf of Maine, researchers assessed data collected from shells and simulated variability through climate models.

They found that following a prolonged period of cooling, climate change has contributed to rising temperatures in the region.

These increased temperatures have already taken a toll on local marine life and will likely worsen in the future.

Using data from shells in the western Gulf of Maine along with other proxies for water properties, researchers revealed global warming has been reversing a thousand-year cooling process in the region since the late 1800s.

According to authors, this is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and changes in western North Atlantic water dynamics. Findings were published in Communications Earth and Environment.

Climate model simulations also show “warming over the last century was more rapid than almost any other 100-year period in the last 1,000 years in the region.”

Extreme marine sea surface temperature (SST) heat waves have been documented in the Gulf of Maine in recent years and have taken a toll on the region’s ecosystems, including certain whales, fish and lobster.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

However, little is known about temperature variability or water properties prior to the installment of the Boothbay Harbor (BBH) SST, dating back to 1905. To address this knowledge gap, researchers set out to construct a 300-year data set chronicling hydrographic variability in the Gulf of Maine.

Three sources of chemical proxies were used to assess water changes including shells, oxygen isotopes (to measure temperature and salinity) and nitrogen isotopes (to measure water mass source).

Prior to the documented warming, the region was consistently cooling for many years thanks to volcanic forcings, researchers said. The cooling followed by rapid warming detected in the study is consistent with the Community Earth System Model-Last Millennium Ensemble (CESM-LME), which shows reconstructions of external forcings, like greenhouse gas or solar variability, over the last millennium.

The CESM-LME Northern Hemisphere surface temperature simulations also detail the impact of volcanic forcings prior to 1850 and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings after 1850, authors said.

In addition, the position of the gulf stream, which helps dictate what proportion of slope water enters the Gulf of Maine, also plays a large role in dictating temperatures.

Future projections of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations along with a projected weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation indicate warming in this region will likely continue, “leading to continued and potentially worsening ecologically and economically devastating temperature increases in the region in the future,” authors concluded.
Bad News for Earth: Rainwater Is No Longer Safe to Drink Thanks to Plastic

Manasee Wagh
Wed, August 10, 2022 

Photo credit: sarayut Thaneerat - Getty Images

The environment contains thousands of hazardous chemicals from plastics.

A recent study shows that at least four of these plastics have pushed us beyond safe limits for plastic contamination.

Drinking rainwater could negatively impact human health around the world.


Remember when you were a kid, and it was fun to tip your head back during a rainstorm and open your mouth to drink the drops? You shouldn’t do that anymore. That’s because you’ll be ingesting too many particles of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), the hazardous chemicals that leach from the ultra-durable plastics we’ve created for about the past 120 years.

Earth is officially past its safe zone for plastic contamination. The PFAS “boundary has been exceeded,” according to a study published August 2 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. PFAS are known to be hazardous to both the environment and human health. At this point, these “forever chemicals” are all over the globe and have seeded the atmosphere. Most importantly, they don’t break down in the environment.

“Based on the latest U.S. guidelines for PFOA in drinking water, rainwater everywhere would be judged unsafe to drink. Although in the industrial world we don’t often drink rainwater, many people around the world expect it to be safe to drink and it supplies many of our drinking water sources,” Ian Cousins, a professor at Stockholm University’s Department of Environmental Science, and the lead author of the study, says in a news release.

There are thousands of different PFAS substances floating around. The study compared the levels of four common forms (PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA) in various sources: rainwater, soils, and surface waters such as streams, lakes, and oceans. They found that levels of at least two forms of PFAS in rainwater, PFOA and PFOS, “often greatly exceed” the safe levels in drinking water, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advises. Levels of the chemicals also exceed environmental protection agencies’ standards in different parts of the world, too.

Depending on the type of PFAS, maximum safe levels according to the EPA range from 0.004 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA to 2,000 ppt for PFBS (another form of the PFAS chemical, which the study didn’t focus on). While the idea of imbibing any plastic is abhorrent, when the human body exceeds safe limits, it can lead to deleterious affects throughout the body, impacting the immune system, cardiovascular system, fertility, and child development to name a few physiological consequences. It can also suppress children’s response to vaccines, making them less effective. There’s evidence that PFOA can likely cause cancer in humans, according to the EPA.

🌎 Discover What Microscopic Plastics Are Doing

How and Why Microplastics Invade Our Everyday Lives

Packaging From Restaurants Like Sweetgreen and Chik-Fil-A Contain Dangerous PFAS Chemicals

Your Blood Could Be Filled With Microplastics

PFAS continually cycles from the sea into the air through sea spray, the study found. Air currents carry it into the atmosphere, where it seeds rain clouds and ends up back on Earth.

Microplastics—the end result of all the plastic products and industrial waste we throw away—are one source of PFAS, and they often wind up in oceans and other waterways, impacting wildlife. While trash in landfills takes thousands of years to completely degrade, it forms minute bits of plastic that are tinier than 5 millimeters long. Their size means they end up everywhere, even in our blood, where they range in size between 700 nanometers and 5,000 nanometers. (A human hair is about 17,000 nanometers).

Reaching the U.S. safety levels for PFAS in the environment is impossible without “huge cleanup costs in drinking water treatment plants given that most drinking water sources on the planet will have PFAS levels above the advisory levels,” according to the study.

But something needs to be done, Jane Muncke, managing director of the Food Packaging Forum Foundation in Zürich, Switzerland, says in the release. She wasn’t involved in the study, but agrees with the authors that the results are alarming. “The vast amounts that it will cost to reduce PFAS in drinking water to levels that are safe based on current scientific understanding need to be paid by the industry producing and using these toxic chemicals. The time to act is now,” she says.

Why There Is So. Much. Plastic.


Photo credit: Andrew Fox - Getty Images

Plastic changed life in the 20th century. The first 100 percent synthetic plastic emerged in 1907. Later in the century, energy companies like ExxonMobil and DowChemicals were trying to turn the waste material leftover from processing crude oil and natural gas into something useful. Their experiments led to the creation of Perspex, polyethylene, Nylon, Teflon, and many other plastic compounds that have made their way into everyday life. Being super durable, plastic never rotted or broke down.

Plastic made manufacturing of all kinds of goods cheaper and faster. It soon took over all kinds of products, from hair clips to cameras, and even clothing and baby bottles. And plastic could be designed to resemble various other materials that were traditionally more expensive or in short supply. Bakelite, for example, gives a rich, almost woody look to household staples like telephones and radios, and it was all the rage in the 1930s. Depending on the compound, plastic can have useful properties, like heat resistance. During World War II, polyethylene plastic was an ideal insulator for radar cabling and, after the war, stocked household pantries in the form of Tupperware. People all over the world hailed plastic as one of the most versatile inventions ever.

While it’s certainly convenient, plastic now permeates everything. The polyethylene terephthalate, (PET, a form of polyester) bottle used for water and other drinks, is light, cheap, and unbreakable compared to traditional glass bottles. It’s so ideal, that about 500 billion PET bottles are now made every year.

Recycling what we have seems like a great option, but it’s complicated by the fact that these items must be well-separated into their different forms before they can be melted down for reuse. Even two PET objects, like a water bottle and a cookie cutter, melt at different temperatures. If combined, they create unusable waste.
Landmark human study finds a link between 'forever chemicals' in cookware and liver cancer


Andrea Michelson
Wed, August 10, 2022 

Human liver tissue under a microscope. Sebastian Condrea/Getty Images

Researchers have confirmed a link between liver cancer risk and exposure to manmade chemicals.

PFAS, or "forever chemicals," are thought to cause health problems including cancer and developmental delays.

People with high levels of PFAS in their blood may be more than 4 times more likely to develop liver cancer.


Exposure to chemicals used in nonstick cookware and long-lasting makeup has been linked to elevated liver cancer risk, according to researchers at the University of Southern California.

Scientists have theorized that manmade "forever chemicals" (also known as PFAS) were harmful to the liver, based on extensive animal studies and a few analyses involving humans.

However, studying cancer risk in humans has proven tricky. It comes with a unique set of challenges, as many factors can affect overall risk and it would be unethical to expose people to potential carcinogens.

The new study from USC's Keck School of Medicine, published Monday in JHEP Reports, is the first to use human samples to confirm a link between PFAS exposure and liver cancer risk.

The team at Keck had access to blood and tissue samples from more than 200,000 people living in Los Angeles and Hawaii, thanks to a previous collaboration between the medical school and the University of Hawaii.

Within that population, the research team found 50 participants who eventually developed liver cancer, according to a news release from Keck. Analysis of blood samples taken prior to these individuals' cancer diagnoses revealed relatively high levels of certain PFAS chemicals.

There are several different types of PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. PFOA and PFOS are some of the oldest and most well-studied kinds. PFOS had the strongest association with liver cancer risk in this particular study.

People in the top 10% of PFOS exposure were four and a half times more likely to develop liver cancer compared to people with the lowest levels of PFOS in their blood, the researchers found. To prove the association, the research team compared the 50 people who developed liver cancer with a similar sample of 50 people who did not develop the disease.

The team said it's possible that PFOS interferes with normal liver function, causing a buildup of fat that can progress to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). More research is needed to determine exactly what that disruption looks like, and when it happens.

Rates of NAFLD have been rising globally in recent years, and the disease is expected to affect 30% of all adults in the US by 2030, according to a 2018 study published in the journal Hepatology. By then, scientists predict that NAFLD will become the leading reason for liver transplants, Insider previously reported.
Satellite data finds landfills are methane 'super emitters'


A person picks through trash for reusable items as a fire rages at the Bhalswa landfill in New Delhi, April 27, 2022. Landfills are releasing far more planet-warming methane into the atmosphere from the decomposition of waste than previously thought, a study suggests. Smoke hung over New Delhi for days after the massive landfill caught fire as the country was sweltering in an extreme heat wave. 
(AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)

SIBI ARASU
Wed, August 10, 2022

BENGALURU, India (AP) — Landfills are releasing far more planet-warming methane into the atmosphere from the decomposition of waste than previously thought, a study suggests.

Scientists used satellite data from four major cities worldwide — Delhi and Mumbai in India, Lahore in Pakistan and Buenos Aires in Argentina — and found that emissions from landfills in 2018 and 2019 were 1.4 to 2.6 times higher than earlier estimates.

The study, published in Science Advances on Wednesday, is aimed at helping local governments carry out targeted efforts to limit global warming by pinpointing specific sites of major concern.

When organic waste like food, wood or paper decomposes, it emits methane into the air. Landfills are the third-largest source of methane emissions globally, after oil and gas systems and agriculture.

Although methane only accounts for about 11% of greenhouse gas emissions and lasts about a dozen years in the air, it traps 80 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide does. Scientists estimate that at least 25% of today’s warming is driven by methane from human actions.

“This is the first time that high-resolution satellite images have been used to observe landfills and calculate their methane emissions,” said Joannes Maasakkers, lead author of the study and atmospheric scientist at the Netherlands Institute for Space Research.

“We found that these landfills, which are relatively small compared to city sizes, are responsible for a large fraction of total emissions from a given area,” he said.

Satellite data to detect emissions is still a relatively new field, but it's being used more and more to observe gases across the world. It means more independent organizations are tracking greenhouse gases and identifying big emitters, whereas previously local government figures were the only source available.

“This new work shows just how important it is to manage landfills better, especially in countries like India where landfills are often on fire, emitting a wide range of damaging pollutants,” said Euan Nesbit, an Earth scientist at Royal Holloway, University of London, who wasn't part of the study.

Earlier this year, smoke hung over New Delhi for days after a massive landfill caught fire as the country was sweltering in an extreme heat wave with temperatures surpassing 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit). At least two other landfill fires have been reported in India this year.

Nesbit added that the newer satellite technology, combined with on-the-ground measurements, makes it easier for researchers to identify “who is polluting the world.”

China, India and Russia are the world’s biggest methane polluters, a recent analysis by the International Energy Agency found.

At last year's United Nations climate conference, 104 countries signed a pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030 compared with 2020 levels. Both India and China are not signatories.

The authors plan to carry out more research into landfill sites across the world in future studies.

“It is a quickly developing field and we expect more interesting data to come out soon,” said Maasakkers.

Four cities’ landfills emit as much methane as 2 million cars: study



Zack Budryk
Wed, August 10, 2022

Landfills are responsible for methane emissions equivalent to that of hundreds of thousands of cars, according to research from the SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Technology.

Researchers analyzed satellite data to identify cities with above-average methane emissions, including Buenos Aires, Argentina, and the Indian cities of Mumbai, Lahore and Delhi.

Zooming in determined landfills comprise large amounts of those emissions within the cities. For example, Buenos Aires’s landfill emits about 28 tons of methane an hour, about the same as 1.5 million cars, while the Indian landfills collectively emit 20 tons per hour, equivalent to up 500,000 cars.

“That is painful to watch because you can solve it with relatively little effort. You could for example separate and compost the organic waste, which would drastically reduce methane production. And even in the case of mixed waste, you can still collect or flare the methane produced,” lead author Bram Maasakkers said in a statement.

“Methane has a lifetime of only about ten years in the atmosphere, so if we act now, we will quickly see results in the form of less global warming. Of course, reducing methane emissions is not enough, we also need to limit CO2, but it does slow down near-term climate change.”


Methane emissions have been identified as a major contributing factor for climate change, as the gas has caused an estimated 0.5 degrees Celsius-worth of warming and, in its first 20 years, is about 80 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.


It is also viewed as a relatively simple form of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce, however, because it also has a considerably shorter half-life in Earth’s atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases.

A July study by environmental groups Ceres and the Clean Air Task Force indicated four companies are the primary source of U.S. methane emissions, more than 300,000 metric tons’ worth: Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Hilcorp and Occidental Petroleum.


Methane ‘Loophole’ Shows Risk of Gaming New US Climate Bill





Zachary Mider
Wed, August 10, 2022

(Bloomberg) -- Range Resources Corp. claims to have one of the cleanest natural-gas operations in the US. Year after year, the western Pennsylvania shale pioneer reports a lower emissions rate for methane than virtually all its peers.

The landmark climate legislation that cleared the US Senate this week is meant to push more companies to be like Range. The bill would impose a first-of-its-kind fee on releases of the potent greenhouse gas from energy infrastructure.

But an examination of Environmental Protection Agency data reveals one of the pitfalls of that approach: companies have broad leeway to decide how much pollution they report, based on how they interpret more than 100 pages of complex agency rules.

An unorthodox reading of a single word in the EPA regulations allowed Range to slash its reported emissions from energy production by 93% in 2020 compared with the approach used by most oil and gas companies. That’s enough to move the company from the bottom of its peer rankings to the top. The EPA says this interpretation isn’t valid, although Range insists that it is.

Such wrangling could become more widespread if the bill becomes law and the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, now a low-stakes counting exercise, starts hitting companies with millions of dollars in fees. Expected to move to the House this week, the Inflation Reduction Act would impose a levy of as much as $1,500 a ton on methane releases above a certain threshold. It’s one of the only noteworthy sticks in Democratic climate-and-energy legislation that focuses on carrots, such as subsidies for buyers of electric cars and for the development of wind and solar power.

“The entire approach to measuring and reporting methane needs to be rebuilt,” said Andrew Logan, who tracks company emissions at the investor group Ceres. “This is no longer an academic exercise. It’s something that will have real financial consequences for companies and investors.”

The stakes are high because one of the biggest sources of climate-warming pollution is natural gas itself. It consists mostly of methane, which has more than 80 times the short-term planet-warming impact of carbon dioxide and often leaks or is intentionally released in the course of energy extraction. Researchers have pointed out for years that EPA formulas, even when applied correctly, tend to undercount methane emissions. A 2018 study found about 60% more emissions from the oil and gas supply chain than what appears in EPA inventories.

Range is one of a handful of companies identified by Bloomberg Green that use the unorthodox interpretation in annual disclosures to the agency. EPA data suggest units of BP Plc and Coterra Energy Inc. have used the interpretation for years. Two privately held firms, Terra Energy Partners LLC and Flywheel Energy LLC, appear to have started using it for the first time in 2020, resulting in a sharp drop in reported emissions. (BP said without elaborating that its disclosures comply with EPA rules. Representatives of Coterra, Terra, and Flywheel did not respond to requests for comment.)

“Some companies just saw it as a loophole that they could take advantage of,” said Logan.

As of now, there’s little to stop companies from exploiting such ambiguities. Regulators review companies’ emissions disclosures for potential inconsistencies and can ask them to resubmit, but the figures are ultimately the companies’ responsibility, said EPA spokeswoman Shayla Powell. Of the oil and gas emissions reports with questionable disclosures identified by Bloomberg Green, only a few were flagged by the EPA as not compliant or still undergoing verification.

Most of the numbers in oil and gas producers’ emissions reports aren’t based on field measurements. Instead, the companies tally up the equipment they use — like compressors, tanks, valves and flares — and apply EPA formulas to determine estimated emissions rates.

An EPA proposal from June to update the rules noted “confusion” over a class of oilfield gizmos called intermittent-bleed pneumatic devices. These controllers use gas pressure to automatically open and close valves at remote well sites. By design, they sometimes release methane. Because there are hundreds of thousands in service, these devices are considered a major contributor to warming temperatures.

To tally their methane output, energy companies must determine how many controllers they have and how many hours they are operational. Then they plug these numbers into an EPA formula to calculate how much gas they’re probably releasing. Most companies report that their controllers are operational virtually all the time — 23 or 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

But a few companies have taken the word “operational” to refer only to the brief moments when a device is actually releasing gas. Range, for instance, estimated its 11,610 controllers were operational an average of just 8 minutes a day in 2020, the latest year for which disclosures have been published. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., which merged with another company to form Coterra last year, reported its controllers were operational for just 4 minutes a day in 2020. BP said controllers in a field in Louisiana operated for a daily average of 10 minutes, although it used much higher figures in other basins.

In the June proposal, the agency said that interpretation is wrong, and that companies are supposed to include all of the times the devices are in service, not just when they’re releasing gas. It noted that the factor used to ballpark emissions from the devices — 13.5 cubic feet of gas per hour per device — was based on measurements over sustained periods of time.

But Range says its reading is valid, and notes that the recent clarification doesn’t have the force of law because it hasn’t been formally adopted as a final rule.

“We believe our reported data meets the current agency definition. If this, or any definition were to change, we would meet those definitions with our reporting,” Mark Windle, a Range spokesman, said in an email.

Windle provided an 8-page letter that Range sent to the EPA in 2019 laying out its reasoning for using the lower number of hours. “This letter was received and not disputed by the EPA,” he said. The agency said it never approved such an interpretation.

If Range had interpreted the rule the way most other energy companies do, it probably would have reported releasing an additional 22,000 metric tons of methane in 2020. That amount of gas has the same short-term global warming impact as adding 380,000 cars to U.S. roads. Range’s methane intensity, a measure of emissions per unit of energy produced, would have gone from being the best of its Appalachian peers to among the worst.

Windle said that Range inspects sites for leaks more frequently than required under EPA rules. The company has also voluntarily installed monitors at some well sites to keep better track of methane emissions and has installed equipment to minimize releases.

After the methane penalty becomes law, it is expected to generate as much as $1.9 billion a year from oil and gas companies, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with fees for some individual companies potentially reaching into the tens of millions of dollars. But even without the financial prod, some companies appear to be gravitating to Range’s reading of the rule.

Last year, a report commissioned by Ceres and the Clean Air Task Force identified Terra and Flywheel as among the largest methane emitters in the country, generating rare media attention for the two small, privately-held producers. A few months later, a new round of EPA disclosures appeared to show that both companies had slashed their emissions by more than half in a single year. Behind both drops: a cut in the amount of time their controllers were reported to be in operation. Terra dropped its estimate from 24 hours a day in 2019 to about 6 hours a day the following year. Flywheel went from 19 hours a day to about 14 seconds a day.

“All they really did was join the crowd of companies taking this questionable approach,” Logan said.

Terra, which operates in western Colorado, told National Public Radio last year that its earlier disclosures had “significantly overstated” emissions. The EPA, for its part, says that Terra’s later numbers are still undergoing verification.

Agency rulemakers are already proposing to base more of companies’ climate disclosures on actual measurements, rather than rough estimates derived from equipment counts. The pending bill mandates that the EPA carry out that plan, and to revamp the reporting system for oil and gas companies within two years. The fee begins to kick in in 2024.

Companies that do undertake their own methane measurements sometimes discover a significant gap with assumptions baked into the EPA’s accounting formulas. Jonah Energy LLC, a Wyoming gas producer, deliberately uses a low hours-in-operation figure for its equipment — about an hour a day — because the standard approach would overstate how much methane is actually leaking, said Howard Dieter, a Jonah vice president. Unlike most producers, Jonah conducts detailed measurements across its operations. It was the first US company to earn a “gold standard” rating from the United Nations-backed Oil & Gas Methane Partnership last year.

After determining how much gas was spewing from its devices in 2020, Dieter said, Jonah reported an hours-in-operation figure that would result in the right amount of emissions under EPA formulas. He said Jonah has discussed the matter with agency officials. The EPA hasn’t yet said whether it’s comfortable with that approach.

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

Renewable Energy Company Closes $4.3M Capital Round to Convert Landfill Methane Into Bitcoin



Aoyon Ashraf
Tue, August 9, 2022 

Vespene Energy, a Berkeley, Calif.-based company that converts methane gas released from landfills into power for bitcoin mining, closed a $4.3 million funding round led by blockchain investment firm Polychain Capital and other climate-focused funds.

The company installs efficient micro-turbines on municipal landfills, which convert otherwise wasted methane gas into electricity to power bitcoin-mining data centers, according to a statement.

According to a U.N. report, methane is a harmful greenhouse gas with a 100-year global warming potential that is 28 times to 34 times greater than carbon dioxide. Citing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Vespene said that U.S. landfills account for 15% of U.S. methane emissions, but a recent NASA survey indicated that these numbers may be two times to three times higher.

“Due to the high costs and long lead times associated with building grid-connected landfill energy projects, over 70% of the country’s roughly 2,600 municipal landfills do not have a viable use for the methane they produce,” the company said in the statement.

Vespene enables landfill owners to turn harmful methane gas, which is a financial and environmental liability, into a potential revenue stream. Vespene, in turn, gets a cheap, renewable energy source for its bitcoin mining data centers.

“By using wasted methane to power bitcoin mining, Vespene is killing two birds with one stone – mitigating harmful GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions and helping transition Bitcoin mining toward carbon-neutral and carbon-negative energy sources,” the company said in the statement.

Bitcoin mining technology has shown promise for mitigating some greenhouse emission-related problems, despite outcries by some lawmakers that miners are harming the environment by using too much energy.

Miners have recently been setting up remote facilities to use otherwise-wasted natural gas to power mining operations. In the process, they have been reducing the amount of methane gas released into the atmosphere.

Vespene will use the fresh capital to launch its pilot site in California, making it the first company to convert wasted landfill methane into bitcoin, the company said. One Vespene module will take about four to six months to establish. Each module will have a power capacity of about 1.5 megawatts (MW) and eliminate 270,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year, Vespene added.

The company’s business model also allows landfill owners to participate in a profit-sharing agreement that has a predetermined floor and ceiling. By letting the company set up its facility, landfill owners can capture a certain amount of upside via a profit-sharing arrangement during a bitcoin bull-run.

Meanwhile, having set limits on how much profit it has to relinquish, Vespene is able to hedge its downside during bearish markets.

“Our goal is to mitigate a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and help fuel the transition to a renewable energy future by using bitcoin mining to turn landfill methane streams into revenue streams for our customers,” Vespene Energy co-founder and CEO Adam Wright said in the statement.
Global heating has caused ‘shocking’ changes in forests across the Americas, studies find


Oliver Milman
Wed, August 10, 2022 


Photograph: Ashley Cooper/Alamy

Forests from the Arctic to the Amazon are transforming at a “shocking” rate due to the climate crisis, with trees advancing into previously barren tundra in the north while dying off from escalating heat farther south, scientists have found.

Global heating, along with changes in soils, wind and available nutrients, is rapidly changing the composition of forests, making them far less resilient and prone to diseases, according to a series of studies that have analyzed the health of trees in north and South America.

Many areas of forest are now becoming more susceptible to ferocious wildfires, causing the release of further greenhouse gases from these vast carbon stores that heat the planet even more. “It’s like humans have lit a match and we are now seeing the result of that,” said Roman Dial, a biologist at Alaska Pacific University.

Dial and his colleagues have discovered that a patch of white spruce trees in north-west Alaska have “hopped” north into an area of the Arctic tundra that hasn’t had such trees in millennia. The scientists’ new research paper, published in Nature, estimates the spruce are advancing north at a rate of around 4km a decade, aided by warming temperatures and changes to snow and wind patterns influenced by the shrinkage of sea ice in the region.

“It was shocking to see trees there. No one knew about them but they were young and growing fast,” said Dial, who first spotted the shadows of the trees on satellite imagery and then took a single-engine plane journey, followed by a five-day hike, to find and study the advancing forest.

“The trees basically hopped over the mountains into the tundra. Going by climate models, this wasn’t supposed to happen for a hundred years or more. And yet it’s happening now.”

The Arctic is heating up several times faster than the global average and the emergence of dark conifers on previously pristine white tundra threatens to absorb, rather than reflect, more sunlight, causing further heating. The trees may also disturb the migration of various local species. “These trees are moving very quickly,” said Dial.

Farther south, separate research has found a transformation is under way at the boundary between the boreal and temperate forests, with species of spruce and fir increasingly unable to cope with the hotter conditions. Scientists estimate that even small amounts of further heating, caused by human activity, could cause up to a 50% die-off of traditional boreal forest trees in certain places, with many other trees becoming stunted in their growth.

“Boreal species do very poorly even with modest warming. They grow more slowly and have greater mortality,” said Peter Reich, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the research. “Intuitively, I thought they would do slightly worse with 1.5C of warming, but they do much worse, which is worrisome.”

Reich and his colleagues spent five years raising nine different tree species from seedlings under different conditions in northern Minnesota, subjecting them to different amounts of heat and water. The boreal species were found to have suffered when soils dried out due to the heat while other more temperate species, such as oak and maple, were able to cope better and may be able to slowly shift into the boreal zone as the world warms further.

“Given how fast climate change is, we could get a 50 to 150 year period where spruce and fir over thousands of miles, including from Siberia to Scandinavia, don’t regenerate, so you’ll have this strange new system of invasive shrubs that won’t provide us with the economic and ecological services we are used to,” Reich said.

The impact of the climate crisis is also being felt in the heart of the Amazon, a further study has underlined. Scientists have raised concerns that the huge rainforest ecosystem is in danger of tipping into a new, altered state, eventually becoming a savannah, and the new research found that a lack of phosphorus in the Amazon’s soils could have “major implications” for its resilience to global heating.
Ex-Miss America Mund: Abortion ruling prompted US House run


In this Sept. 10, 2017, photo, Miss North Dakota Cara Mund reacts after being named Miss America during the Miss America 2018 pageant in Atlantic City, N.J. The Former Miss America Mund said Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, that her concern about abortion rights prompted her to launch her independent bid for the U.S. House in her home state. Mund would face an uphill battle in deeply conservative North Dakota, but told The Associated Press that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to overturn a constitutional right to abortion was "just a moment where I knew we need more women in office." (AP Photo/Noah K. Murray, File)

JAMES MacPHERSON
Wed, August 10, 2022 

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Former Miss America Cara Mund said Wednesday that her concern about the erosion of abortion rights prompted her independent bid for the U.S. House in her home state of North Dakota.

Mund, who is running against the odds in deeply conservative North Dakota, told The Associated Press that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the constitutional right to abortion was “just a moment where I knew we need more women in office.”

The 28-year-old recent Harvard Law School graduate announced her candidacy Saturday, just weeks before early voting begins in the state where Republicans hold every statewide office.

Her run comes as North Dakota’s only abortion clinic is Fargo prepares to relocate across the border to Minnesota to avoid recrimination if courts allow a law banning all abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the pregnant woman to be enforced.

Having the government “make women have to travel across state lines is going to impact women, and women of lower social economic status," she said.

Acting as her own campaign manager and without any fundraising machinery, the Bismarck native has begun gathering the 1,000 signatures she needs to get on the ballot. If she makes it, in November she will face Republican U.S. Rep. Kelly Armstrong, who has held the state’s lone House seat since 2019, and Democrat Mark Haugen of Bismarck, a University of Mary graduate adviser who has long worked as a paramedic.

Mund’s stance on abortion runs contrary to North Dakota’s active evangelical conservatives. But the issue could draw votes from endorsed candidates from both parties, and it especially could be a spoiler for Haugen, a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion.

“If she’s pro-choice, then she’s running to the left of me on that issue,” he said.

Armstrong, an ardent supporter of former President Donald Trump and the former state GOP party chairman, said Mund appears to have all the trappings of a Democrat.

“Seems like people pretty high up in Democratic politics are excited about it,” Armstrong said about Mund’s attempt to get in the race. “It doesn’t change anything we are doing.”

Mund is seeking to present herself as independent of Republicans and Democrats, a candidate with the public’s best interest in mind who would seek common ground. She believes she would appeal to a large portion of the electorate who are fed up with the two-party system that controls politics.

“It’s not fair to make Americans have to pick one side or the other,” she said.

Even with no party apparatus for support, Mund is a known entity in North Dakota and is known for speaking her mind.

She won the Miss North Dakota crown on a platform of increasing the number of women elected to political office. At Miss America in 2017, she said Trump was wrong to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accords that seek to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

Mund said in 2018 that she had been bullied and silenced by leaders within the Miss America organization. The head of the organization’s board later resigned.

Mund said win or lose, she intends to stay in North Dakota and someday raise a family. She took the state bar exam recently and is awaiting the results.

She intends to keep pursing public office if she loses, and looks at the House run as a personal challenge, if daunting.

The biggest failures in her life, she said, “are the things that I was too afraid to try.”

16 Comments On Same Sex Marriages From Republicans That I Can't Believe I Am Reading In 2022

The year is 2022. We pride ourselves on being woke human beings and believe that we know better than the previous generation's bigotry. Wait a minute, though! Read these comments made by Republicans on marriage equality. Maybe we aren't living in 2022 after all...

1.When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Supreme Court has the duty to "correct the error" of legalizing same-sex marriages.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation

2.When Sen. Marco Rubio said he wouldn't vote to codify same-sex marriage into law because it is a "non-issue" and a "stupid waste of time."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) walks to the Senate Republican Luncheon in the U.S. Capitol Building

3.When Ben Shapiro tweeted that the "founders would have died laughing" about same-sex marriages.

4.When Sen. John Cornyn of Texas called the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling an “edict.”

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas

5.When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said that "nobody is taking away gay marriage rights" and that the Marriage Equality Bill is a "shiny object to rile up voters."

6.When Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana called the Marriage Equality Bill a "silly messaging bill."

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) speaks during the COVID Federal Response Hearing on Capitol Hill

7.When Sen. Steve Daines said that "marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Steve Daines speaking in a conference

8.When cartoonist Pat Cross said that "same-sex marriage just won't fly."

9.When Roger Severino said that the Marriage Equality Bill is just radical activists “manufacturing a phantom crisis.”

A photo of Roger Severino

10.When Fox News anchor Tomi Lahren asked the LGBT community to stop "attacking traditional men and marriage at every turn."

11.When South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said that she never supported same-sex marriages because of her faith.

Noem walking and gasping

12.When Sen. Ted Cruz said that the Supreme Court was "overreaching" when it legalized same-sex marriages nationwide.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, displays his cowboy boot

13.When Sen. Mitt Romney's spokesperson said that he "believed that strong religious liberty protections are essential to any legislation" on LGBTQ+ equality.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, is seen in the U.S. Capitol

14.When Sen. John Thune said that marriage equality is an issue that Democrat politicians "have concocted because they would like to shift the issue."

15.When Sen. Josh Hawley said that the Supreme Court went "too far" and that "we should let the states decide."

Josh Hawley's side-profile

16.When this Trump supporter said that she doesn't "believe in gay marriage" because "that's how she has been brought up."