On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

Reversing what President Barack Obama did to protect federal waters only four months ago, President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to expand offshore drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans. The order also looks into the possibility of drilling in current marine sanctuaries in the Pacific and Atlantic, and halts the creation of any new sanctuaries.

While signing the order, “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” Trump emphasized that it would boost the economy and the job market. “We’re unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying American energy jobs,” he said.

Trump claimed that this order will help America on its way toward becoming energy independent. Increasing the use of domestic energy was one of his campaign promises. He said energy independence would create job opportunities.

Trump’s new offshore drilling order is even worse than environmentalists expectedhttps://t.co/9mIiV4UUMl

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) April 28, 2017

However, while Trump’s order is meant to increase the use of fossil fuel and get coal jobs back, China is further developing its use of renewable energy sources. A new research report published this week shows that wind and solar power in China could attract as much as $782 billion in investments between 2016 and 2030.

The BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is often recognized as the worst oil spill in U.S. history; it claimed 11 human lives. The environmental fine BP had to pay, $18.7 billion, could not undo the impact it had on the environment and wildlife. But in his new order, Trump asks Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to repeal some of the safety rules that were implemented after the disaster, as he believes they are “burdensome regulations that slow job creation.”

At the very end of his presidency, Obama used a little known law from 1953 to block further drilling for fossil fuel in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. He ordered a freeze of fossil fuel exploration in 98 percent of federal waters, or 115 million acres, off the coast of Alaska, and restricted drilling in 3.8 million additional acres. Environmentalists cheered the decision.

I joined 27 Senators to call on Trump to protect our coastlines from #OffshoreDrilling & today I’m taking this fight to the #Senate floor pic.twitter.com/owZczcTMj2

— Sen. Maria Cantwell (@SenatorCantwell) April 28, 2017

Environmental groups called Trump’s recent order reckless and maybe even illegal, and several Democratic Senators have said they will fight his attempt to expand offshore drilling. Interim executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, Kristen Miller, said:

In no point in history has a president challenged another administration’s permanent withdrawals. Trump’s action could set a dangerous precedent, which will only undermine the powers of the office of the president.

Trump signed the order on his 99^th day in office. He has signed more executive orders during his first 100 days than any other president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Order to Reverse Obama’s Ban on Offshore Drilling appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama, while vacationing in Hawaii on Tuesday, used an obscure 1953 law to protect millions of acres of federally owned waters in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from future gas and oil drilling. With weeks left in his presidency, Obama’s unilateral action could make it difficult for President-elect Donald Trump to pursue drilling in the protected regions. Existing licenses will not be affected.

Leaning on the rarely-used 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama froze fossil fuel exploration in 98 percent of federally owned waters off the coast of Alaska, totaling 115 million acres. And 3.8 million acres in the Atlantic, stretching from Norfolk, Virginia to the tip of Maine, will be restricted from further drilling. Obama’s sweeping actions were in conjunction with similar moratoriums on drilling in Arctic waters off the Canadian coast by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“These actions, and Canada’s parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on earth,” Obama said in a statement. “They reflect the scientific assessment that even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region’s harsh conditions is limited.”

Bold measure by @POTUS to protect the Arctic Ocean and parts of the Atlantic, (1/2)

— Al Gore (@algore) December 20, 2016

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act contains a clause that allows the president to “withdraw from disposition any of the unleashed lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” Obama’s team is confident that what the bill lacks–language allowing a president to redact any actions taken under the bill–will provide a bulwark against future drilling in the protected areas. Trump’s cabinet, most notably his appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has a pro-drilling bent.

Obama, who has often used unilateral power as a means of pushing climate change action, is confident there is little Trump’s team can do to erase Tuesday’s move. Amending the 1953 act is one potential course of action, but doing so would require 60 votes in the Senate; Republicans hold 52 Senate seats. Environmental groups praised the new protections, while oil industry groups warned they could result in a future of oil dependence.

Congressmen were also split on the issue. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said the new protections “put the interests of millions of Americans ahead of those of Big Oil,” while Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT), the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, called Obama’s actions “an abuse of power.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Protects Millions of Acres from Future Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, a New Hampshire voter asked Hillary Clinton if she would sign a bill in favor of building the Keystone XL Pipeline. Clinton sidestepped the question. stating: “this is President Obama’s decision…if it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been on the forefront of American politics for quite some time now, and Clinton’s reply to the issue has been typical of her response to climate-related questions in general: avoidance. But one oil-related issue, the U.S. ban on crude oil and natural gas exports, is one that can’t be avoided any longer, although it’s certainly not something you really hear the presidential contenders talking about either.

Under American law, energy companies are not allowed to export crude oil, and companies can only export natural gas to countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. The Energy Department can approve natural gas exports to other countries if it deems such sales to be in the public interest; currently, 46 out of 52 such applications have been approved. These policies have their roots in the 1970s energy crisis, a period in which interruptions in petroleum imports from the Middle East caused wild price fluctuations and supply shortages.

For 40 years, these policies made sense. With domestic production declining and the U.S. importing 60 percent of its oil as recently as 2005, the export ban served its function to protect the market from fluctuations and shortages.

The situation is not quite the same today. The increasing prevalence of fracking–a new more efficient method of extracting crude oil–has saturated the domestic market. There is an important distinction to be made between the “light oil” that we are producing in growing quantities and the heavier crude oil that we typically import. Many of our refineries are designed to process heavy oil, and running light oil through these refineries decreases output capacity and revenue due to the incompatibility of light oil with equipment. Consequently, refiners demand significantly lower prices for domestic light oil and the export ban forces suppliers to accept these low prices.

Interestingly, the export ban does not include gasoline and other refined products, rendering the laws of supply and demand that dictate the value of goods in a capitalistic society irrelevant to domestic refiners. Instead, the ban creates an unfair system in which refiners purchase cheap oil in a domestic crude oil market saturated with supply, while their prices reflect the global refined oil market saturated with demand.

Lifting the export ban on crude oil and natural gas would force domestic refiners to compete with foreign refiners, raising the price of light oil and incentivizing suppliers to produce more. Increased production would require new jobs, and subsequent revenues would bolster the economy. Refiners would no longer be the main beneficiaries of cheap light oil. According to energy experts Daniel Yurgin and Kurt Barrow, lifting the export ban, combined with continuing progress in production technology, would lead to as much as 2.3 million barrels of additional production a day. Yurgin and Barrow estimate that this increased production would reduce gas prices by as much as 12 cents a gallon, saving US motorists $420 billion over 15 years.

There are diplomatic advantages to lifting the ban as well. Russia supplied 30 percent of Europe’s gas in 2014, regularly using gas as a diplomatic tool to threaten foreign economies. Last year, Russia declared that it would no longer sell gas at a discounted price to Ukraine, which gets 60 percent of its natural gas supply from Russia. In the Middle East, ISIS’s operations are funded heavily through pirated oil. According to Andy Karsner, former assistant energy secretary in the Bush administration, “We have one bullet that hits both of them: bring down the price of oil.”

At the very least, U.S. oil exports would stabilize the market and provide our allies with viable alternatives to OPEC or Russian energy–perhaps the Western response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine last year would have been stronger had there been a U.S. presence in the global oil market. Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield notes, “It’s hard to believe we’re asking the Japanese to stop taking Iranian crude, but we won’t ship them any crude ourselves.”

It is impossible to predict all the implications of lifting the export ban, of course. Foreign suppliers may reduce their oil exports to maintain the high global price of oil, or Russia could engage in predatory pricing to drive U.S. suppliers out of the market. Perhaps increased fracking regulations will reduce the supply of domestic oil, minimizing our influence in the market. Regardless, lifting the export ban gives our government another front to exert diplomatic influence, engage our enemies, and improve our economy. It’s economics and diplomacy 101. Let’s just hope members of Congress paid attention in class, and that our presidential candidates make an effort to address this essential issue.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lifting the Ban on Crude Oil and Natural Gas Exports: It’s Time to Make a Change appeared first on Law Street.

As anyone who drives a lot–or has a TV, reads the paper, or just generally pays attention–knows, the price of gas has gone down recently. Way down! More specifically the price of Brent crude oil, a major global type, dipped below $60 a barrel Tuesday for the first time in more than five years. That means the price of crude oil has dropped by more than $50 a barrel since its peak, which was just in June. Additionally, nationwide the average price of a gallon of gas has dropped from a high of $3.70 in April 2014 to the current low of $2.53. There are several reasons for this drop; there are also numerous issues that have already begun to arise from the drop in price and many more potential problems if the price of oil remains low or falls even further.

Why is the Price of Oil Falling?

First, the obvious questions: why are oil prices suddenly dropping and why is it happening so rapidly? To answer these queries one must look into account, supply, and demand.

Too Much Supply

First is supply. Specifically, there is too much oil out there, or at least that’s the perception. This buildup is the result of several actors overproducing when the market is not ready to absorb their goods.

• OPEC: OPEC stands for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC is an intergovernmental organization aimed at fixing oil prices of its member countries to ensure each has a fair and stable market for its product. The organization is made up of countries from South America, North Africa, and the Middle East. OPEC gained its greatest notoriety, and also put its fairness into question, with two embargoes in the 1970s that dramatically increased prices at the time. In a surprising about face however, in late November 2014, members elected to continue production at current levels. Why would OPEC elect to continue producing at high rates when basic economic wisdom called for a smaller supply? First, several members of OPEC have only just recently been able to ramp production back up to earlier levels. Libya, for example, was in a long struggle with rebels before it recently was able to reopen two key ports critical for oil exportation. Saudi Arabia was already burned before by trying to reduce supply to match demand back in the 1980s. Instead of keeping prices high it saw a significant loss in market share.
• U.S. Energy Boom: OPEC members increasingly have to tangle with the United States. While reports vary on which country is ranked where, the United States is unquestionably the world leader in energy production when natural gas and bio-fuels are included along with oil manufacturing. Biofuels and natural gas aside, the United States still ranks second in oil production behind Saudi Arabia, it being responsible for approximately 12 percent of the world’s output. The reason for the spike in American production is the now well documented shale boom that transformed places like North Dakota into energy and job hot spots. The video below details some of the pros and cons of the U.S. oil boom.

• Other Players: Along with OPEC and the United States there are several other major players in the Oil Industry. Chief among them is Russia, which sits closely behind at number three on the world’s production list. Russia is incredibly dependent on its energy sector, which generates up to 50 percent of the funds necessary to underwrite its budget. Along with Russia there are a few other non-OPEC countries, namely China, Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

Less Demand

Clearly then, higher supply is impacting world oil prices, but it is not alone. Equally as important is demand. After all, you can make as much of something as you like, but if no one wants it you are never going to make any money. So it is, in a sense, with oil.

A major decline in demand has occurred in two generally reliable regions–Asia and Europe–but specifically in Germany and China, due to economic slowdowns. In other key places such as the United States, similar sags in demand have been seen, but for different reasons. In the U.S., use of gasoline by companies plummeted following the financial crisis and has never returned to pre-crisis levels. Additionally, after numerous experiences being burned by unstable prices America has shifted away from high gas consumption toward more efficient technology like hybrids.

What It Means Now

Bad News

So what does this all mean then? For some countries this drop in oil prices is very bad. Russia in particular has a lot to lose with plunging oil prices. As alluded to earlier, up to 50 percent of its economy is dependent on oil prices and those prices have plummeted. As a result, Russia’s currency–the Ruble–has recently collapsed, losing a massive amount of value in just a couple of days. The collapse, coupled with western sanctions over Ukraine, is threatening to send Russia into a recession. The big question then is whether Russians are still willing to support Putin’s tactics when their standard of living starts to decline?

Other countries such as some of the members of OPEC also have a lot to lose as a result of the crisis. Like Russia, much of their budgets are predicated on their oil revenue. Thus countries like Iran and Nigeria that had relied on oil prices at much higher rates to maintain a sound budget now find themselves being forced to make cuts or face deficits–and even potentially defaults. It is even worse for another member: Venezuela.

Venezuela, despite having huge oil reserves, is facing an impending crisis that could be even worse than Russia’s. At least in Russia’s case it has reserve currency and little debt. Venezuela on the other hand has neither and was already dealing with shortages of other goods earlier this year. This situation has the makings of a powder keg. Some of these countries may also have to consider giving up stipends or canceling social programs funded by oil production. Some of these programs were instrumental in countries like Saudi Arabia potentially avoiding Arab Spring-style uprisings. The video below touches on the problems dropping oil prices imposes on Russia and Venezuela.

Mixed News

What about the United States? As mentioned earlier it has recently become either the biggest or second biggest producer of oil itself. What would a prolonged drop in the price of oil mean to the stars and stripes? Well, as is often the case, the United States may provide the most difficult answer. In certain ways this is a good thing. For example, Americans spending less on gas have more money to spend on other consumer goods, which could help spur faster economic growth.

Conversely, lowered prices could also mean some firms could no longer compete in the market. Many have speculated that lowered prices could dampen the U.S. oil boom currently taking place. In fact in has been widely circulated that OPEC’s decision to keep production high is basically a stare down between it and the United States where one side will eventually be forced to lower production to artificially inflate prices to stay in business. Additionally, employment is a major concern. Lost jobs here could be especially painful as they account for many of the jobs created since the recession.

 Conclusion

At the end of the day it is still unclear what will be the long term results of the drop in oil prices. In fact, as of right now it is still unclear how long these drops will be maintained at all; however, as the price continues to plunge and producers continue to forge ahead it seems fair to at least speculate. Really it’s just amazing that after all the war and talk of renewables globally that the world finds itself on such a precipice again concerning the familiar black gold. It seems then for now the impact of oil’s price drop will be left, much like its value is calculated, up to speculation.

Resources

Primary 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries: Brief History

Additional

Finances Online: Top 10 Oil Producing Countries in the World: Where’s the Greatest Petroleum Domination

USA Today: Eight Countries that Win and Lose Big from Oil Plunge

Vox: Why Oil Prices Keep Falling and Throwing the World Into Turmoil

USA Today: Russia’s Ruble in Free Fall Amid Panic

CNBC: Ticking Time Bombs: Where Oil’s Fall is Dangerous

Sovereign Investor The Hidden Cost of Oil

Foreign Policy: Can OPEC Kill the US Oil Boom?

Forbes: Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth and Security

CNN: Oil Plunge Takes Prices Below $55 A Barrel

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices appeared first on Law Street.

Fracking. The word is thrown around in newspapers, in political debates, in discussions about the future of our global climate change problem. But what does it actually mean? What effect does it have on our environment and economy? Is it even legal? Read on to learn about fracking, the legal framework in place to permit it, and the arguments about the practice.

What is fracking?

Fracking–more scientifically referred to as hydraulic fracking–is the injection of fluids, including water and toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells at high pressure in order to extract the gas and oil. The fluids are projected at the earth with such strong force that it creates cracks from which the gas or oil can freely flow. It mirrors the hydraulic fractures can happen in the earth naturally.

What’s the law on fracking?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by Congress on July 29, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, is “an act to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.” It provides incentives for diversifying sources of energy production. This includes ensuring increased use of biofuel with gasoline, requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to study and report on already existent natural gases, and providing tax breaks and guaranteed loans for making energy conservation improvements to homes.

While fracking was not protected under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Halliburton Loophole is the nickname for the ability to frack under the Act. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the EPA created an exemption in order to allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be legal.

The exemption is on page 102, Section 322 in the EPA.

SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) EXCLUDES—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’

There are no regulations that require documenting the chemicals used during fracking, or their possible health or environmental effects. As a result, multiple states, the most recent being California, have passed laws to create fracking regulations. In 2011, Texas became the first state requiring companies to disclose the chemicals being used.

What’s the argument against current regulations on fracking?

Many argue that these state regulations still lack crucial information that all residents should know about. Additionally, certain state regulations and laws have trade secrets that keep important information about different chemicals from the public. The Clean Water Act found 32 million gallons of diesel fuel illegally injected into the earth during fracking.  Evidence indicates that over six hundred different chemicals are used to frack. The popular HBO documentary Gasland 2 shows footage of Dimock, Pennsylvania where faucet water could be lit on fire because of contamination due to fracking. Many argue that the government should restrict the use of at least certain chemicals used in the process, or at the very least, require companies to state what materials they are using.

What’s the argument in favor of current regulations on fracking?

Fracking supporters argue that it is economically beneficial to the country. The IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported that fracking “supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost $75 billion in federal and state revenue, contributed $283 billion to the gross domestic product, and lifted household income by more than $1,200.” Fracking has promised us affordable and clean natural gas to help combat the foreign fuels we have now. Approximately 20 to 30 billion barrels of natural gas and oil have been recovered due to fracking. Currently, there is no other technology that retrieves natural gas and oil in places from places that fracking can reach.

Conclusion

Fracking has entered the national discourse as a possibly effective way to get some non-renewable resources that are available but difficult to reach. The regulations over whether or not we can use fracking to reach oil and gas resources have evolved over time, but they have done very little to stem the greater debate about the environmental and economical impacts of the process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry

Clean Water Action: Fracking Laws and Loopholes

Independent Voter Network: Middle Ground is Possible for Debate on Fracking in America

State Impact: Pennsylvania’s Disclosure Rules: What the Frack’s in the Ground

Slate: Who’s Fracking in Your Backyard?

EnergyFromShale.org: Pioneering America’s Energy Future

Real Clear Politics: The Breathtaking Benefits of Fracking

Reason.com: The Promised Land of Fracking

American Enterprise Institute: Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking

Elsevier: Fracking–The Pros and Cons 

Economist: Fracking

Inhabitat: The Costs and Benefits of Fracking

Huffington Post: Fracking Pros and Cons–Weighing in on Hydraulic Fracturing

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Announces Final Study Plan to Asses Hydraulic Fracturing

—

Nicole Counts is a freelance writer, activist, and lover of books. She is graduate of Temple University with a BA in English and she lives in New York City. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [greensefa via Flickr]

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Fracking and the Environment appeared first on Law Street.

The world has a complicated relationship with non-renewable resources. Large chunks of these resources are controlled by just a few countries. The United States has long worried about its ability to help our allies obtain these resources. One proposed way has been to pass the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Read on to learn about the underlying energy crisis, and the arguments for and against this legislation.

Background of the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

As the Ukrainian crisis continues to wage on, the question of oil dependence has emerged as a relevant and pressing issue that could impact geopolitical events. Currently, Russia provides one third of Western Europe’s natural gas, and an even higher percentage of Eastern Europe’s, leaving countries such as Ukraine locked under the power of Russian oil prices. As oil and gas prices rise as a result of political tensions in the region, these countries will look to import their natural gas from other sources, hoping that wider options in the market will drive prices down for their manufacturing and private sectors.

Meanwhile, the United States currently has large reserves of natural gas that amount to more than enough for domestic consumption for the foreseeable future. The natural assumption here would be to export US natural gas to these countries seeking independence from Russian energy. However, in order to export natural gas, it must be processed and liquefied at cryogenic temperatures, creating a liquid that can be shipped. The application process for creating export facilities that create Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which must pass through both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is convoluted and delayed; only seven applications have been approved since 2011, with 24 applications still pending.

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and through the House in full, would remove these restrictions by federal agencies and expedite the process for approving applications for the construction of LNG export facilities. However, fierce opposition has risen against this bill. Opponents argue that the bill will inadvertently raise domestic oil and gas prices while providing funding to energy production methods that wreak havoc on natural environments.

What’s the argument for the legislation?

The goal of the act is clear: provide Ukraine with American natural gas, thus breaking their dependence on Russia for energy and balancing the scale of global power in region. Until former satellite nations are able to break their dependence on Russian energy, many argue, Russia will be able to economically, and therefore politically, control these countries. The U.S. State Department recently announced, “The United States is taking immediate steps to assist Ukraine, including the provision of emergency finance and technical assistance in the areas of energy security, energy efficiency, and energy sector reform.” This, in short, is an announcement that US natural gas reserves will be shipped to Ukraine in order to regulate the balance of power that has tipped in that region.

Exporting US natural gas to these areas would, advocates argue, create a number of benefits for the United States and its citizens, in addition to benefits for Ukraine. The act would make the US the world’s top producer of natural gas, thus reinstating America’s dominance in energy production and improving its trade deficit. Shipping natural gas overseas requires the construction and operation of natural gas liquefaction installations, which could create roughly 450,000 jobs by 2025. The main impediment to the export of natural gas, which the bill addresses, is the application process for constructing these new facilities. Both the DOE and FERC have to sign off on any natural gas liquefaction projects, where environmental factors, the LNG buyers’ Free Trade Agreement status, public interest, and a number of other factors must be taken into account. During the FERC phase of the approval, over 20 government agencies become involved in the review process, creating a bottleneck effect in the long line of applications. Advocates argue that this act, designed to expedite this review process and enable LNG buyers to begin exporting American natural gas, will strengthen both America’s economy and the economy of nations such as Ukraine that are heavily dependent on Russian energy.

What’s the argument against the legislation?

Opponents, however, argue that the infrastructure required to ship gas to Ukraine has not yet been built, making it years before any gas would actually reach Ukraine (which, coincidentally, does not have any LNG import facilities, as it gets almost all of its natural gas via pipeline from Russia). Approving applications now to construct LNG export facilities, opponents state, is a long-term solution to an immediate problem. Many believe that exporting natural gas reserves would also negatively impact the US economy in a number of ways, creating more economic problems than the current geopolitical situation is worth. Some experts believe exporting America’s natural gas reserves will increase domestic gas prices, which have been kept low, internationally speaking, by its abundant reserves. Exporting natural gas and creating scarcity would drive up domestic oil and gas prices, hurting commercial interests and everyday consumers. This would also stifle what many refer to as the “American manufacturing renaissance” that has been occurring as a direct result of these gas reserves.

The great quantity of easily accessible natural gas has drawn energy-intensive companies to the U.S. to invest in manufacturing facilities across the country. Recently 97 energy-intensive chemical manufacturing companies invested roughly $72 billion in the U.S., spurring job growth and economic strength. Opponents argue that it is this type of economic growth that America must seek, instead of distant, fleeting profits from the sale of our natural gas. Were America’s natural gas to be exported, rising energy prices and a growing scarcity of domestic energy would smother the manufacturing renaissance and would place economic growth in the unstable hands of the oil and gas industry, instead of the diversified and profitable chemical manufacturing industry.

Lastly, opponents have been joined by environmental advocates who have voiced their concern over the environmental impacts of increased drilling and exportation of American natural gas. If the demand for natural gas export increases, opponents argue, then the demand for natural gas would also increase, which would lead to expanded drilling projects using controversial methods such as fracking to extract more natural gas. The construction of LNG export facilities and expanded drilling projects would also place more wildlife areas at risk that environmentalists have struggled to protect. The pressure for more natural gas recovery would also lead to increased carbon emissions and higher risks of spills and accidents that could dramatically damage an ecological area. Instead, many economic experts argue that the US should export drilling technology and raw materials to countries such as Ukraine to enable them to produce their own natural gas and free themselves from the bonds of Russian energy. In this way, the US could immediately profit from international trade and provide economic aid to its ally, the Ukraine.

Conclusion

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act passed the House this summer, and now is waiting in the Senate. While the bill is subject to much debate, it does begin to deal with the question of how nonrenewable resources are transferred internationally, and the political implications that accompany such transfers.

Resources

Primary

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee: Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Additional

Fuel Fix: U.S. LNG Exports Could Ensure European Energy Security

Energy Collective: Exporting U.S. LNG to Prized Non-FTA Countries: Bottlenecks in the Approval Process

Oregon Catalyst: Walden Presses Obama to Stop Natural Gas Export Delays

Roll Call: LNG Exports: An Opportunity For America

Deseret News: Liquid Natural Gas Exports Threaten U.S. Jobs

The New York Times: Foreseeable Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas

Sierra Club: Stop LNG Exports

Reuters: The Case Against Natural Gas Exports

Greeley Tribune: Colorado’s Delegation Pushes to Fast-Track LNG Exports to Non Free-Trade Countries

Lexology: Congress Turns Its Attention to LNG Exports

The New York Times: U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

Hill: DOE Approves Natural Gas Export Terminal

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Politicization of Natural Gas Exports appeared first on Law Street.

The global community is quickly working its way through the natural resources available to us. As we seek new ways to access oil and gas, one of the newest possible frontiers is the American Atlantic Coast. The U.S. has toyed with using a supposedly minimally invasive tactic to test for oil and gas deep in the Atlantic Ocean called airgun testing. Read on to find out what airgun testing is, what affect it has on the environment, and what its prospects are moving forward.

What is Airgun Testing?

Airgun testing is essentially a way to test for oil and gas reserves. The seismic airguns attach onto ships, and then blast loud, strong bursts of air onto the ocean floor. How the air responds can tell the airgun operator whether or not there may be oil or gas reserves below the surface. Watch the video below for a simple, technical explanation of how airgun testing works.

The History of Airgun Testing in the United States

On February 27, an Environmental Impact Statement was released by the Interior Department that allows the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to begin issuing permits for seismic testing off the Atlantic Coast for oil and gas exploration. Although the ocean floor was tested for oil reserves in the 1970s and 80s, many experts feel those reports used outdated technology and gave an inaccurate representation of the oil and gas deposits in the Atlantic.

Some experts say that oil reserves could be found off the Atlantic coast that would be similar to those known to be in the Gulf of Mexico and could dramatically boost the American economy. Environmental groups, however, strongly oppose oil exploration using this method, as it is known to kill small fish and eggs in close vicinity to the air blasts. The long-term effects on the behavior of larger aquatic animals such as dolphins and whales is unknown. The proposed area for seismic exploration spans several miles off the coast and stretches from Delaware to Florida, and though the area in question is banned from any oil exploration activity until 2017, the next president could overturn that rule.

What are the arguments in favor of airgun testing?

Advocates of oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast using airgun seismic testing argue that the permits issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) place restrictions that will make airgun testing safe for marine wildlife. The Environmental Impact Statement recommends three restrictions to ensure that these tests are conducted in a safe, environmentally conscious manner:

1. Prohibit survey activity on the migratory routes of the endangered Right Whale. A path roughly 20 miles wide would be created in the middle of the proposed area in which exploration could not be conducted from November through April — the whale migration season — creating a safe corridor for the whales.
2. Prohibit more than one survey from being conducted at any given time.
3. Prior to any survey activity, exploration vehicles would be required to use passive acoustic monitoring systems to identify wildlife in the exploration area; if any wildlife are found that would be affected by the airgun, the survey area for that day would be shifted to a different location.

Advocates feel that these provisions, written into any permits issued by the BOEM, would safeguard against potential negative effects of airgun testing.

Advocates also point to the economic benefits of updated oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast. Some experts claim that the Atlantic coast could hold the equivalent of seven years of oil generated in the Gulf of Mexico, enough to boost the American economy and strengthen the United States’ energy security. The American Petroleum Institute has estimated that the oil to be found there could generate nearly 280,000 jobs, $195 billion in private revenue, and $51 billion in government revenue.These estimates, of course, are dependent upon the discovery of more oil than the current 3.3 billion barrels estimated to be there. Additionally, supporters argue that airgun testing can also be used for tasks such as discovering sand deposits for beach recovery and as scouting for possible locations of off-shore wind turbines.

What are the Arguments Against Airgun Testing?

Opponents argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has been too hasty in its approval for permits without proper studies of the long-term effects of airgun testing on marine wildlife. It is known that the high pressure airgun blasts can injure or kill small fish and their eggs, but little is known about the long-term effects on marine animals such as behavioral disruption, migration, and mating patterns. The area up for seismic testing puts 34 species of whales and dolphins and several species of turtles at risk. Because sound travels faster in water, aquatic wildlife miles away from the seismic testing could be affected, although the effects of airgun testing are still being studied. Environmental group Oceana argues that the November through April ban on seismic testing will not save the whales and that the BOEM did little to use current acoustic data on whale activity or search for alternatives methods to airgun testing.

Airgun testing in the Atlantic has also sparked backlash because it could potentially harm tourism and fishing industries in coastal areas, in addition to the negative effects of offshore oil production that are sure to result from oil exploration. Opponents point to the results of airgun testing off the coast of Southwestern Africa, which severely disrupted tuna migration patterns, and thus damaged the tuna industry that normally thrives in that area.

Some experts argue that while 280,000 jobs in oil exploration and production could be created, some 730,000 jobs in the fishing and tourism industries would be lost if oil exploration were to disrupt aquatic wildlife. Additionally, opponents argue that oil exploration will inevitably progress to oil production, which could have disastrous effects upon the Atlantic coast. The effects are still felt today of the 2006 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill near Alaska in 1989. The same type of oil spill could potentially occur off the Atlantic coast if drilling were permitted there, which runs the risk of affecting a greater population than either of the previous spills. Oil drilling itself could pose a myriad of negative effects upon marine wildlife, and airgun testing could be blamed for paving the way to large-scale offshore oil drilling near the Atlantic coast.

 Resources

Primary

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: Atlantic Geological and Geophysical Activities Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Additional

Bloomberg: Review Clears Path For Seismic Tests of U.S. Atlantic Oil

International Business Times: Obama Administration Releases Environmental Study to Set Rules For Oil and Gas Exploration in Atlantic Ocean

Examiner: Use of Air Guns Being Considered For U.S. Oil and Gas Exploration

Greenville Online: Rules Set For Oil Testing in Atlantic Ocean

Star News Online: McCrory Adds Voice to Coastal Governors Who Want Offshore Drilling

Climate Progress: ‘Airgun’ Drilling in the Atlantic Wouldn’t Find Much Oil, But Could Harm Wildlife

National Geographic: Atlantic Seismic Tests For Oil: Marine Animals At Risk?

EcoWatch: U.S. to Allow Seismic Airgun Testing For Offshore Drilling Exploration, Will Threaten Marine Life

Oceana: Seismic Airguns: An Ocean Threat

The New York Times: U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life

McClatchy DC: Interior Department Favors Controversial Seismic Tests For Atlantic Ocean Oil

Tech Times: Atlantic Oil Drilling Using Seismic Airgun May Wipe Out Endangered Right Whales

Washington Post: U.S. Rules Would Allow ‘Seismic Air Guns’ in Search For Offshore Oil, Gas

TIME: To Drill or Not to Drill: The Debate Over Offshore Testing and Drilling in the Atlantic

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airgun Testing For Oil Reserves is a Controversial Environmental Issue appeared first on Law Street.

If a red state known for its oil can spearhead a massive campaign in support of the installation of wind farms and restructure its economy to correspond, then there is no reason why the rest of the country cannot follow suit.

Texas is now the place to be when it comes to turbines and renewable clean energy. Bruce Selcraig explained in a Sierra Club article that politicians, including then-governor George W. Bush, deregulated the electricity industry in Texas in 1999. It was not so much motivated by environmental altruism, but by the nature of the business industry there. Investors are usually willing to make substantial investments so long as there is a reasonable expectation of profit. This is telling, though — clearly there are economic incentives to pursue renewable energy campaigns. If the government of Texas embraces and benefits from these changes, imagine the results on a national level.

Monetary returns provide the driving incentive for the wind industry in Texas on all fronts. In addition to the business-motivated profits, many private landowners are amenable to the installation of turbines on their land because of the promise of royalties. Further, corporate tax incentives and federal support have assisted substantially in wind’s ability to carve out a foothold. As long as it is fiscally advisable, it would seem that the wind will blow strong in Texas.

Harnessable Wind Energy in the US, courtesy of US Department of Energy via Wikipedia

There is a danger, though, in leaning too heavily on financial motivations for clean energy, while completely neglecting the environmental angle. In recent years, fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a reawakening of big oil and gas, especially in Texas. These industries, Selcraig points out, have historically received several billion dollars in annual support from the federal government, while wind has received less then one tenth of that amount. This disparity could widen with the recent increased attention on black gold.

Business savvy investors should understand, however, that in the long-run these non renewable sources of energy are not viable solutions. Despite the surge induced by fracking, wind energy has also been experiencing technological improvements that heighten its efficiency and viability. In 1991, the US Department of Energy speculated that North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone had enough wind potential to meet the country’s electricity needs. Since then, there have been many improvements to the technology. These include simple changes, such as making the shafts of turbines longer so that they reach heights where winds are stronger and steadier.

As a result of this and other changes, that same assessment now concludes that the wind capacities of those three states could satisfy the country’s energy needs. This is a bold statement, but if anything it demonstrates that wind is a more reliable and efficient energy source than most think. In addition, the technology continues to have room for growth and improvement, while non-renewable sources can only yield so much.

Large Global Wind Cells, courtesy of Wikipedia

With regard to renewable energy, the relationships between customers and utility companies vary. Thanks to the installation of new high-capacity electricity lines, a Texas panhandle wind project is on the rise. However, as New York Times journalist Matthew L. Wald illuminates, some residents are concerned that they are compelled to assume the financial risk; customers are seeing an increased monthly bill to pay for the new lines. Wald continues, however, that the efficiency wrought by the new lines will cut electricity costs by more than the increase. This dynamic ought to be conducive to encouraging more people to come on board, as it offers tangible returns.

Where in this debate are the voices of the people? The fate of the energy sector and the health of the planet ought not to be decided solely by corporations. As people become more aware of the dangers we face, and more able to voice their opinions on what to do about them, citizens will project ever increasing influence on the policy-making process. We still have a long way to go, as there are still many “climate denialists” and individuals with too jaded a nature to feel compelled to act. Some changes simply require small lifestyle adjustments. Others require dedication and major overhauls of the status quo. But the status quo is shifting, and the means of its shift continue to fall into our own hands. We must be cautious and proactive with this great responsibility. As Al Gore wrote in a Rolling Stone article,

The progressive introduction of Internet-based communication — social media, blogs, digital journalism — is laying the foundation for the renewal of individual participation in democracy, and the re-elevation of reason over wealth and power as the basis for collective decision making.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chuck Coker via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Winds of Change: Renewable Energy Booming in Texas appeared first on Law Street.