We’re halfway through “Energy Week” at the White House–a series of events promoting President Trump’s energy policies. These are policies the administration claims will boost the economy and grow America’s energy dominance (note the change from “energy interdependence” to “energy dominance”), while creating jobs by reviving America’s declining coal industry.
It’s the same plan we’ve heard since Trump’s first day as President. So let’s ask ourselves, is it working? Read More
The Clean Air Act has a long, well-documented history of reducing pollution, and thus improving – and often even saving – lives in America.
This bedrock law represents one of the greatest environmental and health success stories in the world. Gross Domestic Product in the U.S. has grown 246 percent over the life of the Clean Air Act while at the same time pollutants have been reduced 71 percent.
The Clean Air Act has led to enormous innovation in technology
The Clean Air Act has helped launch innovation in technologies that reduce pollution –technologies which in many cases can be exported around the world. Read More
Map of Texas oil and gas wells that would have been covered under recently-delayed EPA methane rules.
This post originally appeared on TribTalk.org.
A new report from the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (TAMEST) Shale Task Force underscores the problem of methane emissions from Texas’ oil and gas industry.
When burned, natural gas has about half the CO2 emissions of coal (that’s good!), but the release of methane into the atmosphere can greatly erode that benefit. TAMEST explains that methane leak rates can greatly impact the overall greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas and reduce the benefit of burning natural gas versus coal. As TAMEST puts it, “Although the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas combustion is lower than the footprint associated with coal or petroleum combustion, emissions along the supply chain of natural gas can change this footprint.”
The report notes that when industry emits methane, it also emits other hazardous air pollutants that could jeopardize public health — and calls for more research to better understand how these emissions could be harming communities near oil and gas developments. Read More
The Trump Administration and EPA Administer Pruitt recently released a proposed budget targeting the health and well-being of all Americans. Alarmingly, by stripping funding for critical safeguards, this budget would be especially detrimental to the over 15 million Americans living near oil and gas industry operations across the country.
Communities depend on EPA for air monitoring
The oil and gas industry releases methane and toxic and smog-forming pollution like benzene, from drilling wells all across the country. This has unfortunately led to declining air quality in communities living near these operations, and reports of health impacts such as nose bleeds and headaches.
Americans in areas from rural Utah to urban Los Angeles and beyond rely on a network of air monitors to give them accurate and up to date information on air quality conditions. However 30 percent of the cost of these monitors is funded by an EPA program which would see significant reductions under President Trump’s budget. And less vital pollution data could sadly mean more asthma attacks and more school and work days lost. Read More
Electricity is becoming increasingly affordable throughout the United States. This fact was not lost on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the entity charged with overseeing our interstate electricity grid, during a Technical Conference held last month.
Although the Conference was initially organized to focus on how regional electricity markets and state public policies interact, it became clear over the two-day long event that more fundamental questions were on the minds of many participants. Most significantly, for generators, was the question of cost. Read More
The questions the EPA Inspector General appears to be interested in are ones that have been widely and publicly addressed over the past three years, including in peer-reviewed scientific literature. For reference, see our blog posts from here (December 9, 2016), here (June 9, 2016), and here (March 9, 2015).
The most important thing to understand is that there is an extensive body of scientific research, including substantial research produced just over the last four years documenting the significant problem of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, of which the two studies cited in the IG letter are just a small part. Together, this body of research presents a clear and compelling picture of the magnitude of the methane emissions problem in the U.S. and the urgent need for action to address it.
For example, EDF has helped coordinate 16 different research projects looking at emissions from on the ground and in the air. So far 33 peer-reviewed papers have been published on those projects. More than 35 different research institutions and over 120 individual co-authors have been involved in the work published to date. Read More
