The Fight to Stop Mountaintop Removal Continues

By attending Week in Washington, Mason students will join over a hundred people living in areas impacted by mountaintop removal to urge federal legislators to stop destroying our mountains, streams, and communities. Organized by the Alliance for Appalachia, the fifth annual Week in Washington is an event with one clear message: stop mountaintop removal by passing the Clean Water Protection Act.

Mountaintop removal coal mining blasts the tops of mountains with explosives and dumps waste into nearby valleys, burying and polluting streams. This practice devastates the region’s ecology and communities. Constant blasting, increased flooding, and polluted tap water has driven residents in the coalfields to cry out, ‘enough is enough, this must stop’. Emily Miles and Jason Von Kundra, two students registered to attend, look forward to the opportunity to speak with their legislators alongside other supporters of the Clean Water Protection Act.

Anyone interested in protecting our nation’s mountains and streams is encouraged to read more about the event at www.ilovemountains.org/wiw and contact Jvonkund@gmu.edu to connect with Mason students who are attending the event.

The Debate is Over: Climate Change is Here

By Emily Miles
February 25, 2010

With all of the nonsense portrayed in the media over climate change lately, it is hardly a wonder that there is still a significant minority of Americans that do not believe in its existence. Yet, with the average American generating about 5 tons of carbon dioxide each year, it is only common sense that humans should and do in fact have such a large-scale impact as to affect the earth’s natural processes. Science can only agree with this. For example, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of over 750 of the world’s top climatologists, says that climate change is now “unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level, and we humans are the cause.” The IPCC also states that “the warming trend over the last 50 years (1955 to 2005) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” As human industrialism and population growth has especially increased over the past 55 years, this is compelling evidence that humans are the root of this current climate crisis. Even worse, our destructive behaviors are causing a synergistic effect to occur. With increases in oceanic acidification, oceans are now giving off carbon dioxide rather than absorbing it like it has done in the past. As tundra thaws, global warming will be further increased as sequestered green house gases trapped within the soil are released. And remember, it is a scientist’s duty to be skeptical. Yet, according to a 2008 poll by academics of the University of Illinois, 97 percent of all climatologists agree that climate change is man-made. The evidence is clear, climate change exists, and action must be taken now.

Climate change is not only an environmental issue, but it is also, and more importantly, an ethical issue. This crisis will drastically affect humans on a global scale and will hit developing countries the hardest. By the end of this century, according to a University of Washington study led by David Battisti, about half of the world could face severe food shortages. Severe droughts in many areas could affect water supplies, while many areas such as the Middle East already suffer from an insufficient amount of water. The Pentagon has even declared climate change an issue of national security, and, according to its public report called An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implication for United States National Security, “Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different kind of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water… conflicts over land and water use are likely to become more severe—and more violent.” This general instability on the planet caused by climate change could cause millions of deaths worldwide and keep us from realizing our dreams of reaching world peace. By continuing to ignore the effects of our environmental actions, we will not only hurting the planet, but we will also be hurting ourselves and our fellow human beings.

Feds Aim to Cut Greenhouse Gas Pollution 28% by 2020

By Colin Bennett
January 29, 2010

According a statement released by the White House, President Obama has directed all federal agencies to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020. Considering the U.S. government is the largest consumer of energy in the country, the results of the cuts have the potential to be significant. In 2008, the combined total spent on electricity and fuel by all federal departments and agencies was over $24.5 billion. If the Feds reach their target they claim that they will save a "cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020." According to the White House, the savings is equal to more than 200 million barrels of oil and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

President Obama hopes that Reducing and reporting GHG pollution "will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy." Although specific on how the reduction goals will be met are sparse, the White House claims that "Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries."

Of the few examples that they do provide, installing solar panels tops the list, although there is no mention of whether or not President Obama will replace the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the White House in the seventies (that were subsequently taken down by Ronald Regan). Other examples of emission reducing practices the Feds plan to employ include "tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models."

Reactions from most environmental groups have yet to come out but Jason Von Kundra, Co-chair of Mason's Environmental Action Group has a lot to say about the president's goal. "The executive order is merely a baby step toward building the clean energy economy. To establish energy independence, mitigate the impact of climate change, and create new jobs, greater reduction commitments are necessary on the national level. This low reduction effecting only the federal government has a high baseline of 2008 emissions, an inadequate reduction for 2020, and lacks any commitment for 2050." Von Kundra also states that, "According to the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 assessment, an 80%-95% reduction of GHG concentration by the year 2050 is needed to stay below 450ppm, which is still dangerously too high if we want to stabilize the climate. I appreciate Obama’s step in the right direction, but I’m holding my applause until I hear a commitment to carbon neutrality that will truly lead the way to a clean energy economy."

Federal efforts to reduce pollution can be tracked at the White House's Council of Environmental Quality website at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

Note: This piece has been edited since its original posting. Jason Von Kundra's quote "This low reduction effecting only the federal government has a high baseline of 2008 emissions, an inadequate reduction for 2010, and lacks any commitment for 2050" was corrected to say 2020 instead of 2010. The remainder of the piece is untouched.

As Planet Continues to Warm, Mason Takes Action

By Colin Bennett

Earlier this month Mason's Office of Sustainability published its first Climate Action Plan for the school. Essentially, the goal of the plan is for Mason to reach climate neutrality by 2050, not a moment to soon as NASA announced last week that 2009 "was tied for the second warmest since 1880." Moreover, "In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record." In fact, according to NASA, the last decade was the warmest decade on record.

According to Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, "There's always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year's ranking, but the ranking often misses the point." He says that El-Nino and La-Nina are responsible for annual variability in global temperature, but he continues, "When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

Today, as the nation debates the merits of President Obama's State of the Union Address and Congress continues to drag its feet on climate legislation, Mason is hard at work on reducing its climate emissions. According to the climate plan, Mason's target for reaching climate neutrality by 2050 will be via an at least 80% reduction in emissions with the remaining greenhouse gases that the school is responsible for to be offset through an appropriate offset strategy. Technological advances and appropriate policies will reduce the universities climate footprint substantially; however, a significant component of the plan calls reaching out to the Mason community. Specifically, in order to reach the goal every individual at Mason will need to do their part.

A newly formed Climate Action Team overseen by Mason's Office of Sustainability will help with the out-reach efforts around campus. The team will be responsible for helping to organize climate related events, offering presentations on Mason's climate commitment, and disseminating climate messages throughout appropriate venues. Most importantly though, the Climate Action Team will be responsible for getting members of the Mason community to sign the Mason Climate Pledge.

Signers of the Mason Climate Pledge commit to helping Mason achieve climate neutrality with "actions as simple as turning out lights when leaving a room and powering down computers when not in use". To date, almost 1000 people from Mason have signed the pledge, becoming Mason Climate Champions by doing so. With hope, and the dedication of the Climate Action Team, at least 50% of the Mason community will sign the pledge and become a climate champion by this time next year.


This image is a five year global temperature average from 2003 to 2007. Red represents above average temperatures.

Photo Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

Powerful Tool to Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under Attack

By Colin Bennett

In early 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ruled that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, and as such, can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Two years later the EPA responded by proposing a finding that GHGs "contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare". Then, in September of 2009 the EPA followed up with "a proposal that is focused on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions." This decision was lauded by environmentalists who were excited by the prospect of the federal government finally taking on climate change. (A summary of the EPA's proposed rule can be found here.)

Specifically, the EPA would regulate facilities that emit 25,000 tons per year or more of carbon dioxide equivalents including refineries, power plants, and cement production facilities. The carbon dioxide equivalents include corresponding amounts of methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. According to the EPA, "The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain [NSR and title V] permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters—including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities."

Now, under an amendment added to an unrelated bill, the EPA is in danger of losing its authority to regulate GHGs. According to a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the amendment, introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), "would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from spending money on regulating carbon dioxide from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act for a period of one year." According to the Washington Post, "two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress."

Fearing that any delay to federal action, especially a delay motivated by the interests of industry, will severely hamper our ability to curtail the worst effects of climate change, many environmental groups are crying foul. These groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Repower America, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are calling on the Senate to reject the amendment. Each of them has set up electronic 'action alerts' to allow citizens to contact their senators to voice their opposition to the amendment.

Although both the Post and the N.Y. Times are reporting that Senator Murkowski may end up delaying offering her amendment, groups opposed to the measure are not giving up the fight to see the amendment disappear for good.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Photo Courtesy Wikimedia Commons