Certain species of large whales, particularly humpbacks, are less threatened now than they were when whaling bans took effect in the ’80s, according to a new report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The Geneva-based IUCN, which describes itself as “the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network” and counts nearly eleven thousand scientists around the world as volunteers, is the author of a Red List which for four decades has kept tabs on the status of plant and animal species worldwide, focusing on conveying “the urgency and scale of conservation problems to the public and policy makers, and to motivate the global community to try to reduce species extinctions.”

In the 2008 Red List, the humpback’s situation is described as one of “Least Concern,” meaning its odds of extinction are low, although two subpopulations are still considered “Endangered.” (This page provides an exhaustive explanation of the organization’s approach to categorizing risk.) The group attributes the whales’ resurgence to legal protections against commercial hunting, though it says whales do face the threat of accidental entanglement in fishing gear, strandings caused by military sonar, and the various effects of climate change.

The news, unsurprisingly, is not all good. The latest Red List finds that “Most small coastal and freshwater cetaceans,” — a category that includes dolphins and porpoise — “are moving closer to extinction.” The IUCN also notes that the overall picture could be worse than reported, since they don’t have enough data to make accurate assessments of nearly half of cetacean species.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Photo: © Holger Gurski | Dreamstime.com

The well was dry beside the door,
And so we went with pail and can
Across the fields behind the house
To seek the brook, if still it ran; . . .

- Robert Frost’s “Going for Water”

Every year, more about the world’s worsening water crisis is revealed: Who has potable water, sanitation and fresh drinking water – and who doesn’t.

The statistics are foreboding: The United Nations, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the Global Water Trust, World Water Council, the Pacific Institute and other international organizations warn us that by 2025, two-thirds of the Earth’s population will live in water-strapped countries. By mid-century, they say, two out of three people around the globe may not have potable water, and by the end of this century, the number of people without access to fresh drinking water – just under a billion today – could double.

Water, water, they tell us, is not everywhere.

Water that humans can use, that is. The world’s population uses about 1 percent of all the water on Earth, according to U.S. Geological Survey charts. The remaining 99 percent of the planet’s water is salty or brackish, or it is trapped in glaciers and ice.

But if scientists have the technology to desalinate water, or to super clean storm-drainage water or contaminated groundwater, isn’t that reason for optimism? And if, according to these same global entities, the number of people who have fresh drinking water has actually increased in the past couple of years, isn’t that good news?

Yes, says Pasquale Steduto. He is an expert in water-use efficiency and productivity, and has spent the past 20 years working in agriculture-water related issues. Because of his skills, Steduto is the chief of Water Service for the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. The Rome-based water scientist spoke at length to Greenrightnow.com last week, offering a big-picture perspective on the state of the world’s water.

Careful not to paint too rosy a scenario, Steduto (pictured) expresses optimism: there is more access to fresh drinking water, and more cities and countries use new guidelines on water-system efficiency. Plus, more countries are acknowledging that all humans have a basic right to clean water (such as South Africa in a recent, unprecedented high court ruling).

Multinational corporations are at least attempting, Steduto says, to look at the water crisis from a humanitarian standpoint – such as in last year’s CEO Water Mandate.

The world’s perception of water – how we use it, how we take it for granted – is changing rapidly, experts say. Whether it is due to necessity or market forces, governments and individuals are changing how they use water and decide their water needs.

“There is a shift in a way, in lifestyle choices and behaviors, ” Steduto says. “The shift of the paradigm is, ‘O.K., we cannot really go too much toward increasing the supply. Are we in a position to reduce the demand, or no?’

You can always tell a garment that has come back from the dry cleaners. There’s that faint smell that seems to linger on the item, and in the closet, until that shirt or jacket gets worn again. The smell comes from the solvent used in the dry cleaning process, and chances are it’s not particularly good for you or the environment.

Perchloroethylene (PERC) is the most common chemical fluid used in dry cleaning. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about 28,000 U.S. dry cleaners use perc, which is the only airborne toxin emitted from the dry cleaning process. Scientists with the EPA say that acute exposure to perc can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, headache as well as a loss of coordination, and have identified perc as a “possible to probable human carcinogen.”

The state of California, which declared perc a toxic chemical in 1991, has been more explicit. The state’s health officials say that the chemical can cause esophageal cancer, lymphoma, cervical and bladder cancer.

The dry cleaning industry, however, says perc is safe for dry cleaning because when clothes are properly cleaned there’s no chemical residue on the fabric, and as long as the equipment doesn’t leak, there’s no danger to the environment. Given these somewhat contradictory pieces of information, what can a wary consumer do?

First, you can forgo dry cleaning by shopping for clothing that doesn’t require it. You can ask that your clothes be wet cleaned — your “dry” cleaners may offer that option — or you can experiment at home with cold water, some clothing labeled dry clean can be gently washed.

Unfortunately, keeping at arm’s length from a dry cleaners won’t solve the perc problem: Also at issue, is the fact that if a dry cleaning machine leaks, perc can enter the ground and contaminate drinking water. It can also be an air pollutant since much of perc’s fumes escape into the outside through open windows, vents and air-conditioners.

Slowly, drycleaners are starting to use new machines that diminish the amount of perc that escapes during the cleaning process. The EPA is hopeful that environmental costs will be reduced thanks to recent improvements to dry cleaning equipment and more cautious operating practices.

Beginning July 27, the EPA will require all owners and operators of facilities using perc solvents to make sure their machines are inspected while in operation for vapor leaks monthly.

In January 2007, the California Air Resources Board put in place the country’s first statewide ban on perchloroethylene. The law requires that by 2023, no machines using perc will be allowed. And if a dry cleaners uses a machine that is 15 years or older, the machine must be disposed of by 2010. In California, one in 10 wells have been contaminated by perc.

In Missouri, all dry-cleaning facilities, including coin-operated dry cleaners, must register with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The facilities pay an annual surcharge based on the number of gallons of chlorinated solvents used during the calendar year. That money goes to the Hazardous Waste Program’s Drycleaning Environmental Trust Fund which investigates, assesses and re-mediates dry cleaning issues. In addition, Missouri dry-cleaning facilities that use PERC are required to pay an annual fee in accordance with EPA’s national perc air emissions standard.

Chris Allsbrook, a certified professional dry cleaner and a spokesperson for the Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute International, says that all dry cleaning involves a solvent, whether it’s perchloroethylene, carbon dioxide or a petroleum-based solution. “Think of a front-loading washing machine,” she says. “You put in the clothes, close the door and as the clothes spin, the solvent is injected into the machine. The reason it’s called ‘dry’ cleaning is that the solvent dries immediately, similar to rubbing alcohol. There’s no dryer involved.” After the cleaning cycle, the solvent is drained and the “extract” cycle removes any excess solvent from the clothes.

The advantages to dry cleaning are that it can remove oil and grease stains that may be difficult to remove in ordinary home washing, according to the Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute.

Percholoroethylene was introduced in the 1930s, according the institute. Until that time, the fluids used in the dry-cleaning process were dangerously flammable. Perc is a nonflammable solvent.

The institute believes that all dry cleaning procedures are safe as long as the machines don’t leak, says Allsbrook. But what about that dry-cleaning smell? That, he says, could be from the sizing used by some dry cleaners. “There should be no odor in a properly cleaned garment.”

Robert Randolph, an environmental engineer with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ air pollution division, says some people are more sensitive to the solvent smell than others. He says if using the dry cleaning method to clean clothes, it’s best to immediately remove the garment from the bag and air it out.

“Perchloroethylene (perc) has been found to be one of the best dry cleaning solvents,” he says. “The key is to make sure the dry cleaning equipment is working properly. “

Zebao Li with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality deals with the environmental contamination caused by solvents such as perc. “The danger of perchloroethylene,” he says, “is if it leaks into the ground water. This will impact the drinking water.” Like Randolph, he stresses that dry cleaners have to be sure that their machines do not leak.

Cal Baier-Anderson, a health scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, has worked previously with Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites. She says dry-cleaning facilities were often one of the sites she dealt with. “Perc contamination is a problem across the country,” says Baier-Anderson, who trained as a toxicologist. “When perc gets into ground water, it forms dense non-aquaeous phase liquids (DNAL) which pools at the bottom of the aquifer. Because it is dense, it drops to the bottom. It’s like a sponge that has too much soap in it – it continuously bleeds out more solvent. You could also compare it to putting honey into cold water. The honey drops to the bottom of the glass and slowly dissolves. In the case of perc, it takes a very long time to dissolve and is very hard to remove.”

In the 2008 Society of Toxicology Annual Report, Baier-Anderson noted the following:

Perc exposure is associated with both cancer and non-cancerous effects. Based on animal studies, there appear to be multiple types of tumors that are involved following both ingestion and inhalation, and there is a consistent association between human exposure and increased risk of several different types of cancer.

Baier-Anderson notes that, “as with any chemical, there are a number of areas of uncertainty that must be accounted for: Individual variability in response to exposure; the existence of individuals who might be more sensitive; the biological pathways leading to increased cancer risks have not been fully characterized — the impact is difficult to assess.”

So, avoiding dry cleaning using the perc solvent seems to make sense. But what are some of the alternative options?

• Petroleum-based and silicone-based solvents are alternatives to using perc. One common petroleum solvent is DF-2000, dubbed an “organic” solvent and made by ExxonMobil. Some dry cleaners have switched to DF-2000, but it is a known irritant and emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can enter the atmosphere. Because DF-2000 is a hydrocarbon, it is scientifically classified as “organic” but this is misleading. In this case, the scientific definition of “organic” should not be confused with something that is all-natural. As for silicone, the verdict is still out on it. The California Air Resources Board conducted a review and deemed that it is an acceptable alternative to perc. The Dry Cleaning Station, located in Minneapolis, is one company that uses silicone. CEO John Campbell says their product is called Green Earth and was developed by Procter & Gamble. It doesn’t clean quite as well as perc, but you can get as good results if you treat the fabric carefully, he said. In some respects, it’s a superior product, “It leaves clothes softer and fresher than perc. And if it gets spilled anywhere, it is not a contaminant,” he says. Campbell says the growing company, which he helped found in 1993, has about 100 stores in about 25 states.

• Another option to dry cleaning with perc is using liquid carbon dioxide as the solvent, along with detergent. This is a relatively new technology that uses high pressure to convert carbon dioxide gas to liquid form. It then becomes a carrier of biodegradable soaps, the same way water does in a washing machine. Minimal carbon dioxide is lost into the air, according to the environmental website, care2.com. Green Apple Cleaners, with locations in New York and New Jersey, uses this type of cleaning, employing a Solvair Cleaning System (pictured).

• Another idea is to wash the garment by hand — despite what a label might say, many clothes can be washed this way. Use a mild detergent and gently churn the clothes in cool water. Be sure not to twist or wring out wool or silk. For stains in wool or silk, try spot cleaning with vinegar or lemon juice, testing for dye color fastness first. Then carefully press water from the fabric. Lay wool items flat on a towel and shape before drying. Silk and rayon garments should be hung up.

• Yet another possibility is to wet clean the item. The Dry Cleaning Institute’s Chris Allsbrook says wet cleaning is similar to dry cleaning but doesn’t use solvents. The clothes are put into a front washer-type machine and as they spin, detergents are injected into the machine. When done, the clothes come out wet and are then put in a dryer. The EPA also offers a list of wet cleaners.

Consumer Reports was pleased with the state of California’s 2007 decision and with the direction the EPA is headed, but in a blog post states: “We’d like to see the EPA limit perc’s use once and for all – for every state in the country. In the meantime, consumers can help by seeking out facilities that use perc-free dry cleaning methods.”

Consumers can also find out more by visiting the EPA’s FAQ on dry cleaning.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

You’ve read the reports in the media – or heard them on the nightly news – that a growing number of American cities are banning the use of Styrofoam, a.k.a. polystyrene foam, in restaurants and food services, due to health and environmental concerns.

Some observers say it isn’t fair or necessary to institute government-imposed restrictions on a free-market economy, but the anti-Styrofoam forces say it is necessary because the non-biodegradable, air-puffed plastic hangs around landfills (and parks and waterways) for hundreds of years, unlike more earth-friendly counterparts like cups and plates made of paper products. They also claim that corporations won’t concern themselves with this environmental issue unless pushed to do so.

It’s a complicated row, this Styrofoam business and, with no real national policy or federal legislation, it’s gotten more heated on both sides. The obvious target in the debate is the restaurant and food-service industry, whose greener consumers have raised a fuss over Styrofoam in progressive urban areas like San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; and Suffolk County on Long Island.

But many purveyors of Styro-insulated hot coffee, steamy take-out food and loudly fizzing fountain cokes (only Styrofoam can give it that particular fizz, fans claim) insist that the benefits of Styrofoam outweigh the negatives. It keeps things hot. It keeps things cold. There is simply no substitute for it, plastics insiders say.

Which is why some major fast-food chains (Sonic and Chick-Fil-A , for example) are still packing it up in polystyrene. Of those two biggies, both corporations defend their stances but also promise that they are reviewing all options.

“Sonic’s customers have traditionally preferred foam or polystyrene over other types of cups,” a spokesperson said by email. “As it stands today, only two main options exist for disposable cups that are used extensively in the fast-food industry: polystyrene foam or plastic-coated paper. While polystyrene foam accounts for less than 1% of all landfill contents, that fact doesn’t lessen consumers’ and businesses’ interest in seeking alternatives…Additionally, as societies learn more about the impact of human life on the environment, we, as a business, seek to collaborate with our supply partners to develop sustainable ways of delivering best-in-class soft drinks in a scalable and affordable way…Those conversations have begun.”

Chick-Fil-A executives commented that they are “currently working on a ‘Going Green’ initiative.” The spokesperson, Brenda Green (no joke), didn’t elaborate.

Perhaps it’s best to examine the larger picture anyway, explore what others in food service say about the general whys and why nots of Styrofoam. Maybe it should be called the Styro gyra dance – because the opinions vary so widely from one camp to the other. The American Chemistry Council does an impressive side-stepping waltz when discussing the material, trying to spin it from a different perspective.

According to an ACC affiliate, there is no real evidence that Styrofoam adds more to “the litter problem.”

In fact, Mike Levy, director of the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, a division of ACC, says there is a mis-perception of Styrofoam’s impact on the environment and how it affects the country’s landfills. He believes that because of this, the recent bans have been misguided.

“The cities that are interested in banning or have banned it, have done so under the idea that it’s going to solve a litter problem or reduce green-house gases, and in all cases that hasn’t been shown. In one city where that happened (a ban), Portland Oregon, they did studies later, and what they found was that not only did it not cut back on litter, but, because it’s so much lighter than other waste products, that it takes up less space in landfills.”

Levy says that if the substitute were to be paper board or paper with an oil-based coating on it, that wouldn’t be any better for the “litter problem.”

Activists and alert shoppers have plenty of bones to pick with the way groceries are labeled and the way environmental or nutrition claims are monitored, or not, by the government. Yesterday, Tyson Foods announced that it is removing its “Raised Without Antibiotics” label from chicken, and has gone on record asking the USDA to clarify the rules for such labels in advertising.

The Arkansas-based company, the world’s largest poultry producer, had been using various forms of the label since it was approved by the USDA in May 2007. Initially reading simply “Raised Without Antibiotics,” the claim was modified last December to the cumbersome “Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics That Impact Antibiotic Resistance in Humans.” But legal action from competing companies and threats of a class-action consumer lawsuit eventually led to this week’s events, with Tyson making its announcement just as the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) moved to rescind its approval of the label.

Part of the issue has to do with a practice that Tyson says is “used by most of the U.S. broiler industry,” in which eggs are vaccinated before they hatch. Tyson’s position is that a chicken vaccinated before hatching has still been “raised” without antibiotics; competitors felt it was a misleading claim that gave the chicken giant an unfair marketing advantage.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that clearer guidelines are needed. A vice president at Tyson, Dave Hogberg, put it this way in an official announcement: “We still support the idea of marketing chicken raised without antibiotics because we know it’s what most consumers want. However . . . we believe there needs to be more specific labeling and advertising protocols developed to ensure the rules are clear and application of the rules is equitable.”

The government already has admitted as much. According to a statement by FSIS Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard Raymond: “On May 23, FSIS notified Tyson Foods Inc. that FSIS, along with the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, will initiate a public process to review policies on ‘Raised without Antibiotics’ claims for poultry. To ensure that this process is equitable, FSIS will review any claim relating to the use of antibiotics in poultry that it has already approved for companies other than Tyson Foods, Inc.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

In 2002, the City of New York was recycling about a fifth of its waste, but some in the Bloomberg administration thought the program cost too much. In response to a budget crisis, the city stopped collecting glass and plastic (they continued paper and metal collection), arguing they’d save $40 million over the next year.

Happily, that policy was reversed in 2004 — partly because the savings turned out to be nowhere near the $40 million estimate. Wanting to establish that this was the right move economically as well as environmentally — not only for NYC, but for other cities that might consider trimming recycling programs — the Natural Resources Defense Council (working in conjunction with the local Department of Sanitation and other groups) commissioned an ambitious study to attach bottom-line figures comparing recycling with conventional trash disposal. Turns out recycling makes sense either way you look at it.

The report (summarized here, downloadable here) found that the cost of recycling and trash disposal are currently close to equal (disposal is $17 cheaper per ton, or 6%). But recycling will soon become a better deal: Because of the rising cost of landfilling and exporting waste, the study’s authors believe disposal will actually be more expensive than recycling “in no more than five to six years.”

Unfortunately, the city hasn’t quite returned to that 20% recycling number since weekly pick-ups resumed; city officials put the current figure at 18%. But Mayor Bloomberg has reasons beyond the budget to urge New Yorkers to recycle more avidly: Unsurprisingly, the study also demonstrated that “recycling significantly reduces the city’s global warming pollution – making it an important contributor to the Mayor’s PlaNYC 2030 goal of reducing global warming pollution by 30 percent.”

For more information on recycling in New York City see these website pages for the NYC Wasteless program.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Without Congressional action on the pending bill H.R. 6049, many of the credits will expire at the end of 2008, and are already causing uncertainty among new greener businesses trying to serve homeowners and commercial properties with improved energy systems, according to proponents like the advocacy groups, Solar-Nation.org and the World Wildlife Fund, which has set up an email form you can send to senators. Those wanting the extensions say they are needed to sustain new businesses and engender investment in emerging technologies. Among the credits that the groups want extended:

• Investment Tax Credits for Solar and Fuel Cell Technologies, including a credit for 30 percent of the cost of residential solar and fuel cell systems.

• Tax Deductions for energy efficient commercial buildings

• Tax Credits for the Manufacturers of Efficient Appliances

• Tax credits for energy efficient new homes of up to $2000 and a $500 credit for retrofits to existing homes.

The legislation has been stalled as the House and the Senate have debated how to pay for it; Senators say they don’t want to raise new taxes to cover the $54 billion bill and the House’s trial balloons to ding oil companies for some of the tab have been shot down by Senate and White House disapproval.

“Call it stalemate, call it deadlock, call it a stand-off; the bottom line is, the clean energy revolution is being strangled,” complains Solar-Nation on its website. “Every day that passes without an extension places more green jobs and investment at risk and slows down our transition to a clean energy economy.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Earth Day is 38 years old and still going strong. That says something about our nation’s commitment to the environment, or at least the commitment of those who’ve kept conservation issues – clean air, clean water, pure food — on the table all these years.

Photo © 2008 by Kim Komenich | Distributed by Noofangle Media
Thousands gather in San Francisco for the Green Apple Festival Sunday.

Despite the Bush Administration’s renegade status outside the global groundswell to address climate change and clean up the planet, the United States is full of conservation-minded individuals and groups. Increasingly, they’re everyone, not just “tree huggers” and certainly not just Fair Trade latte-sipping liberals, either. They’re Republicans and Baptists; Southerners and Northerners; farmers and truckers. California is chock full of environmentalists, and thank God for them. California’s attempts to put curbs on car emissions may help break a nationwide deadlock on that front; its farmers’ ability to grow organic vegetables helps us all. The Silicon Valley brain trust is working hard to unlock the answers to affordable solar power, and the state’s swaggering, eco-friendly Republican governor puts the lie to the stereotype of the wimpy environmentalist.

The truth is Earth Day was always more than the passion of just hippie types. In 1970, it was President Nixon who signed the bill enacting Earth Day. Today, some of the leaders of the new order are those good ol’ boys in West Texas where they’re tipping their cowboy hats to better see the new, towering wind turbines set up outside Sweetwater. They’re also growing organic cotton out there on the plains, more than in any other state.

Of course, some people still view environmentalist agendas skeptically. There are those who question whether humans are causing global warming, and others who say climate changes are nominal and natural and little needs to be done. These are fair debating points in a democracy. But the discussion is partly academic.

Even if you don’t believe there’s a pending global emergency, there are plenty of related fires that need attention. The U.S. is paying in precious lives and billions of dollars to retain access to the world’s dwindling oil reserves in the Middle East. Our corporations are lopping off mountaintops in Appalachia to scrape out the last coal. Like oil, it’s finite.

Midwest farmers are chasing a biofuel frenzy that’s sent a cascade of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers downstream, not to mention what it’s done to food prices.

Our little boys are being “feminized” by plastics in their environment, and it’s a good bet that the contaminants turning up in our drinking water nationwide are not an elixir for good health.

Someone referred to our “mauling” of the planet over this Earth Day weekend. It seems like a given. And we haven’t even talked about melting ice caps, flooding cities, Katrina, polar bears or food shortages.

But rather than get discouraged, we can and should act. Today, on Earth Day, and all this week, organizers would like Americans to take the simple action of calling their representatives in Washington by phoning the Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121.

Tell lawmakers you want energy alternatives, clean water and a brighter future for your children. Tell them that you:

• Support emissions limits on cars and curbs on polluting businesses to alleviate global warming.
• Want new and renewed green investment tax credits for homeowners and businesses trying to cut their energy use.
• Think American-made cars should average 35 miles per gallon or more and also should come with incentives for buyers who purchase gas sippers and hybrids.
• Want them to cut pollution and create jobs by devising a green “economic stimulus package” that fosters the growth of domestic industries like wind power.
• Support research for fuels made from algae and waste and other sources that don’t steal food-producing acres, and want Congress to encourage small farmers with government incentives for resting overworked fields and employing organic practices.

Or maybe you have a pet project that is helping the environment, like the No Child Left Inside program that would strengthen outdoor science education and get our kids back in touch with nature.

Next, you can go join the 15,000+ electronic signers of the Sky Petition posted at Earth Day Network .

It’s ask is straightforward:

Dear Members of Congress:

We elected you to lead, and are now asking you to lead us out of the climate crisis with the boldness and courage that the crisis requires. As the home of the world’s boldest innovators, the world’s strongest economy, and one of its leading democracies, the United States Congress must champion the effort to solve global warming or risk losing our economic future and our democratic principles.

We demand that Congress act now to cap greenhouse gas emissions and stop global warming by implementing the following:

1. Impose an immediate moratorium on the building of all new conventional coal-fired power plants, and require a phase out of 30 percent of existing coal plants by 2030.

2. Require that all utilities generate 30 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030.

3. Require that all new buildings, renovations and developments immediately reduce fossil-fuel energy consumption by 50 percent, and that all new buildings become ‘carbon neutral’ by 2030.

4. Protect the poor and middle class from unfairly bearing the cost of solving the climate crisis.

Happy Earth Day.

It’s no surprise that Big Energy gets the role of Goliath in Mat Hames’ and George Sledge’s Fighting Goliath: The Texas Coal Wars, a documentary produced and narrated by Robert Redford and The Redford Center at Sundance Preserve that follows a recent chain of events in which coal companies tried to fast track a bundle of new greenhouse gas-emitting plants. The surprise comes when a swell of opposition is able to seize the slingshot and fell the giant.

But the coal war that Texans fought (and still fight) is becoming all too familiar in other states. Some observers might describe the burgeoning trend as a bonafide coal rush. According to the filmmakers’ research, that’s what the governor of Texas and powerful coal interests tried to do to taxpayers in 2005-2007– by fast-tracking permits for a score of coal-fired power plants, shortening the process from 12- 18 months to a mellow six months.

The reason for the scramble: Greater environmental responsibility is inevitable in the coming years, Hames says. Many companies want to “grandfather” in coal-powered plants before laws prohibit them altogether or force executives to spend big bucks to clean up the process.

Yet, in one of those all-too-rare instances where the will of the people trumps big-energy finagling, the steamrolling efforts fizzled. As the film illustrates, there are still times when angry citizens decide they’re not going to let a handful of CEO’s build 19 belching power plants in one fell swoop (11 of those plants by a single company) without a full-on Texas brawl.

And after months and months of public pressure and legal wranglings, the number of plants planned was dropped to three. (For now. Read the post in 11thHourAction.)

The documentary is about a grassroot group’s battle and quasi-victory. But more than that, Fighting Goliath is about the strangely harmonic convergence of ranchers, farmers, town-folk, big city mayors, small burb mayors and environmentalists who banded together and forced the industry to scale back its plans – a decision that was announced last fall. Most environmentalists would call that a victory.

Redford apparently does. The activist, director and actor had been paying attention to the situation in Texas, where he frequently visited his grandparents as a child. And when his Sundance Preserve began meeting with mayors around the country regarding environmental issues and needs, the coal wars in Texas emerged as a symbol of bigger ills, nationwide.

The film, which is 30 minutes long and focuses on two small towns that would be most affected by the cluster of plants, began touring the festival circuit early this year. Hames and Sledge hope to get national distribution soon. For now, the filmmakers are starting to schedule individual screenings in small towns around the country, particularly in the Midwest, where similar coal wars have broken out.

In a recent conversation, co-director Hames, whose Alpheus Media also produced the 13-part PBS series, “State of Tomorrow,” talked about the country’s coal wars and how this project landed in his and Sledge’s lap.

Q: How did “Fighting Goliath” originate?
A: The project began for me when a woman named Jill Tidman at the Redford Center at Sundance Preserve called me. The Preserve had been doing a gathering every year called the Sundance Summit, where they bring in mayors from various towns around the country – small towns and large towns – and talk with them about things relating to the environment. And at the Summit for the past two years, coal has emerged as a big issue. … There’s a coal boom going on right now. It’s been huge, and the organizers at Sundance have been paying attention to Texas (and how it thwarted the coal rush), and in advance of last October’s summit they said, ‘We’ll have all these mayors together. Let’s make a film about what’s going on in Texas and show it to these mayors. That was the impetus. And from there, it kind of took on a life of its own.

Q: Why do you think Redford was so interested in the topic? And in Central Texas in particular?
A: I think Robert believes the most important thing he can do is affect change at the grassroots level. Mayors are closer to their constituents than any other type of politician or representative. They’re a good group of people to talk to. So the idea for the film came out of those meetings. … I got involved because (Austin documentarian) Laura Dunn made a film called “The Unforeseen” that Robert co-executive produced, about Barton Springs – and she recommended me to him. He lived here a lot as a child. He used to swim in Barton Springs, so he’s really familiar with Central Texas.

Q: So, what happened with the Texas coal war?
A: Coal has become a big issue in the past few years because, first and foremost, we need the energy. Everyone is aware that we need more energy. People such as the (Texas) governor, who are responsible for making sure that our state has enough energy, are looking at all different kinds of ways of providing it.

A good majority of our energy in this country comes from coal, although in Texas, the majority has come from natural gas. But when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita happened, they did significant damage to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. So, Gov. (Rick) Perry decided he wanted to fast track the permit process for these coal-powered electricity plants, which is normally 12 to 18 months, by saying that for any new power plants , it can’t take longer than six months. In cutting the permit time down, that suddenly created an environment where coal companies felt welcomed. It was very beneficial to them. And carbon emission standards are only going to get more stringent in the next decade or so, so there’s another sort of thing behind this coal rush – and that’s to build as many coal plants as possible before that happens. So, all of a sudden, you had 19 coal-fired power plants proposed in Texas, and of those 19, one particular company, TXU, was to build 11.

Q: Is this coal rush a national phenomenon?
A: It’s absolutely national (cities and states are running out of existing energy sources and are having to expand their grid to, for now, mostly fossil-fuel based supplements) . But I think this example was widely known by the Summit participants – in particular, Robert Redford. Once the announcement was made that TXU was going to build 11 plants alone, people got angry in Texas and they got energized to fight the coal. … Some of those people included Mayor Laura Miller of Dallas, the Mayor of Arlington, Robert Cluck, Houston Mayor Bill White and Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen Texas in Austin, who formed a coalition. And what they found was that, in order for them to have a legal case to stand on, they’d need to get involvement from cities and towns where those plants were going to be built. They had to essentially get in their cars and drive all over Texas and enlist the help of the mayors in these small towns. So there were big city mayors and small town mayors coming together – ranchers and farmers, people who are not traditionally allied with environmentalists. Some of them were conservative Republicans, some liberal Democrats, but they were all sort of unified behind this.

Q: Didn’t some of these towns want the plants – to provide jobs, boost local economies?
A: There were a lot of people who saw it that way. Their towns could benefit greatly – they could get a new gym built for their schools. They need the jobs. But at the end of the day, most of these people believed that the impact on their children’s health would be more important than those shorter term benefits. … It got kind of crazy (with the coal interests trying to entice or bully municipalities). In fact, a guy from TXU came to one of the town’s school board meetings and told them they could get all kinds of money and that he could show them how to avoid paying taxes. All kinds of crazy things were going on. At the end of the day, the people said no. Now, a year and half later, that town is still hurting. They could have used that money, but they didn’t think it was the right thing to do.

Q: So, what caused the reversal, or near-reversal, of planned plants?
A: Some of it is still going on, but basically, TXU started to take such flak from so many people in Texas that their stock started to fall. And once that happened, they became a target for a takeover. Two very large investment companies (one from outside of Texas) came in and did a leveraged buyout of TXU and promised to bring the number of plants (legal agreements were made) down to three. It’s a sort of victory, but it’s still too early to tell what will happen down the road. And that’s the way the film ends sort of: It’s hopeful and it’s great that these people could come together and cause this sort of change. But the question is, did they just win the battle or was that the war?

Q: Apparently you’ve had an amazingly positive response to this film, since you began showing it at film festivals early this year.
A: We’re getting invitations to screen the film all over the U.S. right now. (Word of mouth has caught like a prairie grass fire, Hames says). We’re just trying to keep up with it. The film is literally out in front of us and we’re chasing it. … We’re looking at screening in places like Kansas (where Gov. Kathleen Sebelius just vetoed a large coal plant) and all around the Midwest, and we look forward to having a lot more screenings in the near future, and eventually hope to air it nationally on television. We’re also working on a distribution deal. For right now, though, we’re focusing on screenings and an outreach that’s hopefully going to be in places you might find these same kinds of battles going on. We’re planning to take the film to small towns and project it onto buildings in town squares, so that people who normally wouldn’t see a film like this will get to see it.

Q: What’s the bigger picture on this for you? Coal is evil and dirty? Mayors are the only trustworthy politicians? Or that it’s possible for the little people to battle and possibly conquer Goliath — that there is at least a slingshot out there?
A: To me, what this whole thing is about is how people from all different walks of life came together to fight something they thought was wrong. If there’s a lesson here to be learned, it’s a lesson about Democracy. And that you need small town people and big city mayors and ranchers and farmers and activists to get together on these issues.

Resources on coal:

Coal Block

Stop The Coal Plant

Natural Resources Defense Council

Mayors For Climate Protection

Additional reading on the Texas fight:

11th Hour Action

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Photo: Port of Long Beach

In 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s pristine Prince William Sound slathering wildlife and the untouched rocky shores with an inky, sticky coating of oil. The event created a powerful visual image of the sort of damage ocean ships can cause. A similar environmental disaster occurred in 2007, when 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel were spilled into San Francisco Bay after a container ship collided with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in thick fog. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency.

But bad as those spills are, the shipping industry has an even more insidious side. Tankers and freight ships are polluting the air regularly, a problem with cumulative effects at least as onerous.

Experts, advocates and researchers are all urgently looking at ways to reduce the air pollution caused by ships, which is worsening as our global economy demands a constant exchange of goods from faraway places. Compared to the air pollution from cars and trucks, which is more stringently controlled and remains relatively flat, the pollution from ships is expected to more than double by the year 2030, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Marine vessels are already a significant source of air pollution in the United States and their relative contribution is rapidly growing,” the EPA reported to the U.S. Senate in February.
The report states that ocean ships’ emissions in the U.S. alone measure about 13 percent of the nitrous oxide (N2O); 17 percent of the particulate matter and 50 percent of the sulfur oxide spewed into the air.

Of those, only the nitrous oxide is considered a true greenhouse gas because it becomes trapped by the earth’s atmophere and contributes to global warming. But the particulate matter and sulfur dioxide contribute to the dirty air that exacerbates asthma and other respiratory conditions.

The EPA anticipates that by 2030 these air pollution from ships will rise, comprising 46 percent of the nitrous oxide emitted; 52 percent of the particulate matter; and 95 percent of the sulfur oxide.

These emissions are a different composition from those of cars and coal plants, which are large emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2), the major greenhouse gas. But the N2O from ships makes them a significant culprit in the mix of polluters contributing global warming. (For more on greenhouse gas emissions see the EPA’s fact sheet.)

The pollution percentages from ships are rising fast as more produce and manufactured goods are being shipped globally, said John Kaltenstein, program manager (Clean Vessels Program) for Friends of the Earth, which was among the participants at the conference on ship pollution in Los Angeles in Feb. 25-27.

Environmentalists in Texas aren’t pleased with the way the state handles pollution regulation, and they’re lobbying for change — not in the Austin statehouse, but with those tasked with regulating it at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Local branches of two established organizations, Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club, have filed a petition with the EPA claiming that “the state of Texas violates the Clean Air Act and its own State Implementation Plan through repeated weak permitting decisions concerning new coal plants and other large polluting facilities.”

The groups have asked the EPA to withhold highway funds, reduce pollution offsets, and/or prohibit construction of large new power plants in order to nudge the state toward compliance. Environmental Defense’s Jim Marston uses the state’s rugged mythos as rhetoric, saying “federal law doesn’t allow Texas to be the lone ranger and ignore the law.”

Sierra Club officials assert that state programs have “been acting illegally by issuing permits for new coal plants that allow unsafe levels of pollution” and that the state is “renowned for lax environmental enforcement, issuing weak permits, and basically thumbing its nose at federal law.”

This should be a case to watch because the outcome will ripple beyond Texas, which has a large carbon footprint to match its outsize image and alleged nose thumbing. With its petroleum refineries, oil production, vast highway system and large cities, the populous state is the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the United States.

The petition was filed Jan. 17. EPA spokesperson Dave Bary politely declined to comment, saying that the “EPA will reserve comment until it formally responds to the petitioners within our regulatory time limits.”

Those who want to know more about how climate change will affect Texas can read the Environmental Defense report “Fair Warning, Global Warming and the Lone Star State.”