The API sure is worried about losing their profit on oil in this country, and they want you to help them keep it. That’s what Energy Citizen is for – to encourage “regular” people to stand up to any climate change bill, no matter what. Please don’t fall for their new-found concern for high energy prices. After all, the less oil we burn in the name of protecting our environment hurts their wallet and that’s all they are concerned about. If you see this logo anywhere, rest assured it’s from the American Petroleum Institute and their friends, who include (per their own site) the Ohio Coal Association, FreedomWorks, and Avis Rent A Car :

The strangest part? There are members of the API who are actually for a robust climate bill, so I am not sure how heated any private meetings go between all these guys. Lucky for you, now you know just who is putting those Energy Citizen ads on the air and you can duly ignore them!

Post from: The Good Human

“Energy Citizen” Ads Are From The American Petroleum Institute.

You may also enjoy:

1. Summary Of The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill: American Clean Energy and Security Act.
2. Greenwash Of The Week: BP -Not Exactly Beyond Petroleum.
3. Tax Incentives For Energy-Efficiency Improvements.
4. It’s Not Foreign Oil We Are Dependent On – It’s All Oil.
5. Health Care Cost From Fossil Fuel Burning Is Over $120 Billion Per Year.

Nor did the study measure damage from burning oil for trains, ships and planes. And it did not include the environmental damage from coal mining or the pollution of rivers with chemicals that were filtered from coal plant smokestacks to keep the air clean.

“The largest portion of this is excess mortality — increased human deaths as a result of criteria air pollutants emitted by power plants and vehicles,” said Jared L. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who led the study committee.

Nearly 20,000 people die prematurely each year from such causes, according to the study’s authors, who valued each life at $6 million based on the dollar in 2000. Those pollutants include small soot particles, which cause lung damage; nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog; and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain.

This is not good news for us at all. Even worse is the finding that so-called “renewables” are even worse for us than regular gasoline is, something I have been saying for a long time.

The study lends support to arguments that society should pay extra for energy from sources like the wind and the sun, because their indirect costs are extremely small. But it also found that renewable motor fuel, in the form of ethanol from corn, was slightly worse than gasoline in its environmental impact.

We often think that the “cost” of gas is $2.50 at the pump, but that is far from the truth. In reality, it costs a lot more – including our health.

Post from: The Good Human

Health Care Cost From Fossil Fuel Burning Is Over $120 Billion Per Year.

You may also enjoy:

1. Realizing The Finite Availability Of Fossil Fuels Is Fundamental To Climate Change Talk.
2. Trailer For The Film ‘Burning The Future: Coal in America’
3. “Energy Citizen” Ads Are From The American Petroleum Institute.
4. Simple Low-Cost Green Improvements For Your Home.
5. Living Near Trees Improves Your Health.

Dear EarthTalk: Are the United States’ vast oil shale resources a potential source of energy?

Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen, a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds that can be converted into synthetic liquid fuel similar to oil, or into shale gas similar to petroleum-derived natural gas. Geologists believe there is more oil shale out there in the rocks of the world—three trillion barrels worth of fuel—than there is oil in existing reserves globally.

Oil shale has been mined extensively in Brazil, China, Estonia, Germany, Israel and Russia, but up to two-thirds of the world’s supply lies in the Green River basin of the western United States, including parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. To date, these American oil shale resources remain virtually untapped, but an 11th hour executive order by the Bush administration in 2008 put two million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land across Wyoming, Utah and Colorado up for lease to oil shale extractors.

Other nations with oil shale reserves have been mining them for decades for power generation and other uses, but American enthusiasm has run hot and cold, depending on oil prices. The U.S. was bullish on oil shale during the 1970’s oil shocks, but when gas prices fell again, so did the enthusiasm for oil shale.

American companies didn’t look into mining domestic oil shale again until 2003—again, thanks to spiking oil prices. George W. Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 officially opened federal lands to oil shale extraction. But then once again lowered oil prices, along with environmental concerns and growing enthusiasm for renewable energy sources left oil shale’s future in the U.S. again uncertain.

For their part, environmental groups are unequivocally against oil shale extraction. For one, extracting operations destroy affected landscapes, forcing plants and animals out, with regeneration unlikely for decades. Another big issue with oil shale extraction is water usage. The process requires as much as five barrels of water—for dust control, cooling and other purposes—for every barrel of shale oil produced.

Oil shale extraction is also very energy-intensive, and as such is no solution to our global warming woes. Researchers have found that a gallon of shale oil can emit as much as 50 percent more carbon dioxide than a gallon of conventional oil would over its given lifecycle from extraction to tailpipe.

Due to these concerns and others, 13 environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, teamed up in January 2009 to file suit against the federal government for opening up all that western U.S. land to oil shale development. The suit contends that the BLM failed to properly consider air quality and endangered species impacts in the region. The groups also contend that the development would require the construction of 10 new coal-fired power plants in order to get at and process the oil shale, significantly upping the carbon footprint of the entire region.

Green groups hope that the Obama administration will overturn Bush’s decision to lease development rights on the land, which is near three national parks in one of the least developed parts of the U.S.

CONTACTS: Bureau of Land Management, www.blm.gov; Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at EarthTalk; or e-mail us. Read past columns at our archives.

Post from: The Good Human

Why Oil Shale Extraction Is A Very Bad Idea.

You may also enjoy:

1. EarthTalk: Undoing Bush’s Environmental Legacy.
2. The Plan To Mine Uranium Near The Grand Canyon.
3. Is Clean Coal Really Clean? Not Really…
4. It’s Not Foreign Oil We Are Dependent On – It’s All Oil.
5. “Energy Citizen” Ads Are From The American Petroleum Institute.

Post from: The Good Human

Fish Oil Spill – Saturday Morning Cartoon.

You may also enjoy:

1. The Newborn Baby Fish – Saturday Morning Cartoon.
2. Cross That Bridge – Saturday Morning Cartoon.
3. Chainsaw Biofuel – Saturday Morning Cartoon.
4. FDA Approved Melamine Formula – Saturday Morning Cartoon.
5. Seafood Mercury Warning – Saturday Morning Cartoon.