Energy & Environment

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently got in a rather public spat with the U.S. Department of State over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. Apart from the irregularity of one Cabinet agency attacking another, the episode was a boondoggle for the EPA, which came out looking both petty and unscientific.
 
In a letter to the State Department, the EPA contends that the State Department (which has the ultimate say in the whether or not the pipeline gets the green light) did not accurately assess the magnitude of the carbon dioxide emissions that would result from the burning of the 830,000 barrels of oil the pipeline would transport each day.

In 2012, National Geographic told us, “Unlike CO2, methane affects human health, because it is a precursor of smog.” Now the Environmental Defense Fund tells us, “... each pound of methane is 72 times more powerful at increasing the retention of heat in the atmosphere than a pound of carbon dioxide.” So, what is this toxic greenhouse gas, methane? It’s natural gas, that stuff we get from “fracking.”

U.S. nuclear power plants have been generating electricity for more than 50 years, but the nuclear industry and the federal government have yet to figure out what to do with nuclear waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. On April 25, a bipartisan group of senators — Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) — released draft legislation addressing this intractable problem.
 
Their proposed bill, which mirrors the recommendations of the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, would lay the groundwork for an interim storage facility that would hold nuclear waste until the government builds a permanent repository. No argument with that.

It is one of the great myths of our political debate that we must choose between economic growth and environmental protection. Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s nominee to head up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has spent her career proving this a false choice.
 
McCarthy has been an advocate for crafting solutions to environmental challenges, while simultaneously increasing market certainties and creating opportunities. For the business community, certainty translates into confidence, and confidence leads to more investment, more jobs and more robust growth.

The oil industry hopes to protect its control over America’s fuel supply by undermining renewable fuels. By confusing us with misleading claims and outright falsehoods, oil companies hopeCongress will overlook the real dangers caused by our almost complete dependence on oil for transportation fuels. For our economy and our environment, we cannot allow them to succeed.

Sometimes, even in Congress, one can overplay one’s hand protecting turf. Consider the South Carolina delegation’s sharp objection to President Obama’s cut to a nuclear project sited at Savannah River designed to convert 34 tons of nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into civilian reactor fuel. President Obama, who has a reputation for spending too much on energy projects, wants to cut this one by $167 million and find a more cost effective way to dispose of the plutonium. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has decided to play hardball by placing a hold on the Energy Secretary nominee, Ernest Moniz, whose appointment just received near unanimous approval of the Senate Energy Committee.
 
To be sure, the president’s proposed cut hardly augurs well for the Mixed Oxide Fuels (MOX) program.

In Washington these days, it is hard to get Democrats and Republicans to agree on much.  But one thing they do agree on is the need to closely examine how the dramatic increase in the price of compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS, could lead to gasoline price increases.
 
Recently, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy Committee Ron Wyden of Oregon warned of "unprecedented price spikes" for credits, known as renewable identification numbers, or RINs. Across the political aisle Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and David Vitter of Louisiana argued that "recent prices for RINs have skyrocketed" likely resulting in "increased costs to consumers" as well as greater gasoline exports and reduced domestic production. Obviously, this is a grim picture recognized by both sides in Washington as we approach the summer driving season.

In his recent blog post on April 19, “Conservation: A legacy for the environment and the economy,” former Representative Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) examined the proud tradition of conservation that Republican leaders in our country championed, dating back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, an ardent outdoorsman and conservationist, and the first president to utilize the Antiquities Act to protect our natural and cultural treasures.

For the second straight year, the U.S. is tied for last place with Papua New Guinea in the time it takes to bring a new mine online. According to Behre Dolbear’s new rankings, the mining industry standard for assessing political risk, extreme permitting delays continue to be “the most significant risk to mining projects in the United States”.

The Obama administration should take these findings seriously. Federal mine permitting delays – many of which can be traced to the Environmental Protection Agency – handicap America in the global race for critical resources, and cost jobs. And this isn’t just rhetoric, it’s reality: just as Behre Dolbear published America’s rock-bottom rank this month, Caterpillar announced that it laid off 460 workers at a U.S. mining equipment plant, citing weakening demand.

In all likelihood, Gina McCarthy will soon be confirmed as the new EPA Administrator. She must demonstrate her commitment to regulatory actions based on sound science and not continue in her predecessor’s footsteps by bowing to pressure from environmental activists. EPA has handicapped the U.S. economy by delaying or obstructing the development of America’s mineral resources, which are critical to ensuring our manufacturing competitiveness and our ability to innovate.

And then there’s national security. In fact, the ink has barely dried on the Pentagon’s 2013 report to Congress on strategic and critical minerals and metals. The study found 23 of them in potential shortfall, and in the case of nine metals recommended – for the first time since the Cold War – that Congress take actions to spend approximately $1.2 billion to stockpile them.

Either the Pentagon didn’t get the memo on sequestration – or we’re in serious trouble.

Reading deeper into the report, the latter is clearly the case. One of the scenarios posited involves a one-year metals embargo instituted by China, which produces nearly 90 percent of the metals surveyed.

My own organization, American Resources Policy Network, did a risk screen for minerals and metals used in defense applications, based on reports from the Pentagon and other federal agencies. We derived a “risk pyramid,” with 46 metals on it – with China being the single largest supplier. We also discovered found that America is home to resources for 40 of these important minerals and metals.

In other words, if we are foreign-dependent for a wide range of hard rock resources, it is a dependency that is largely self-inflicted.

With Earth Day upon us, I would just like to note a few of the things we have learned in the past several years – the Earth is warming, sea ice is disappearing, the glaciers are receding, the oceans are acidifying, and sea levels are rising. We know all of this from climate science.  And all of this will impact every single person on this planet.

The work being done at NASA, NOAA and other agencies is providing the crucial data that our nation will need to move forward on this critical issue, yet some would have us stop climate science research across the federal government.