MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1015 discussions

Public Meetings on the Longview Power Plant(s)
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 11 Oct '19

11 Oct '19

NOTE: Longview is proposing to continue to run the existing coal fired coal power and install a waste stream pipeline into Robinson Run and/or the Monongahela River. Also, proposed is Longview II — a gas fired power plant — which will emit thousands of tons of carbon dioxide each day along with nitrogen oxides, particulates and other pollutants. ATTN: Longview Working Group-Planning meeting Sunday > > We have reservations for a large public meeting on Nov. 7 (6-9 PM at the MAC on High Street), and our goal is to get 100 people there. > > So we will hole our next planning meeting this Sunday (Oct. 13) at the Suncrest Panera's at 6:30 PM. The room holds 15, so if each person brings a friend, we can fill the space. > > Can we count on you? > > Thanks to Justin, here's the Facebook event for Sunday's meeting, if everyone could share that out and invite friends. > > https://www.facebook.com/events/1383548498460251/ > > Jim Kotcon

1 0

April Pierson-Keating: the Best of West Virginia – Appalachian Chronicle
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 29 Sep '19

29 Sep '19

https://appalachianchronicle.com/2019/09/29/april-pierson-keating-the-best-… April Pierson-Keating: the Best of West Virginia We honor her too-brief life by fighting to the end, as she exemplified From the Memorial of Michael M. BarrickSeptember 29, 2019 BUCKHANNON, W.Va. — The first time I met April Pierson-Keating in 2014, I immediately knew I had met a woman that had no time to waste when it came to fighting the natural gas companies that are damaging public health and destroying the environment throughout much of West Virginia through fracking and related pipeline development. With April’s passing yesterday, we have lost a relentless happy warrior. For sure, she was stern with those that believe that they had dominion over the land of others, to take and use and destroy. They believe in sacrificial zones. April did not. The people, she was determined, would be heard. And heard she was, from her home in Upshur County to Virginia and points in between. Yet, she was also a happy presence. So, her smile, as well as her intellect and determination, brought joy wherever she went. So, we are just processing the reality that her voice is silent. Or is it? We must keep April’s voice alive. Nobody, of course, can replace her. Our hearts are heavy. But those of us who knew April know one thing for sure — she expects us to keep fighting for justice for the people of West Virginia and all of Appalachia. A few years ago, when trying to share with my younger friends/readers one of the benefits of being engaged in a good fight — building lifelong relationships with people that are among your best friends — I wrote this article. April is pictured in it. That was the first meeting of the Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance. I made a great new friend that night. My head and heart ache for the loss of that friend. My thoughts and prayers go out to her family, friends and the people of West Virginia. Yet, April — though gone in the physical body — remains influential and even present today so long as we honor her life by fighting for justice with the same vigor with which she did. Let us live her example — fight until the very end. It is what, I believe, she expects of us. I understand that is was April’s wish that we post photos of water in her honor since she worked so hard to protect our source of life. To that end, let us rush, as does the water tumbling over Blackwater Falls, to establish justice in our land.

1 0

Longview is at it again. Beware of Longview II
by via MVCAC 24 Sep '19

24 Sep '19

Longview Power, knowing a sucker when they see one, is back at the Monongalia County Commission with their hand out. yet again. This time they want the taxpayers of Mon County and West Virginia to subsidize another one of their misguided, polluting schemes. The Mon County Commission has an agreement in hand giving Longview II (or Son of Longview for you horror-movie fans) a tax break with a payment in lieu of taxes (PiLoT) arrangement to build another power plant near their first power station. Longview has already filed for permits with the WV Department of Environmental protection (DEP). This time Longview has plans for a gas-fired power station to be built next to their coal-fired power plant in Mon County, in the community of Fort Martin, WV. Yes, this is right by the 1960s-era Fort Martin Power Station, which is still chugging, churning, and spewing along with NO sign of shutting down in the foreseeable future. Longview also supposedly has plans for a solar array in PA. There is little opposition to the solar installation, but I wonder if that is just a distraction. We know from Longview's past dealings that they dangle these "green" shiny objects to divert our attention, but then renege on all of their green promises once they get what they want (see the cooling water and coal transport paragraphs below). I fear the solar panels may just be another one of those expendable items. Just to refresh your memory on Longview Power I (sorry, this is long): GenPower/Longview Power was a power-plant real-estate agent from Massachusetts, putting together all the parties and obtaining tax breaks from Mon County along with low-interest public loans/bonds from the state of West Virginia to build a coal-fired power plant. They then sold the project to someone else (along with the name Longview Power), and skedaddled out of town with the profits before anything was built. They are just brokers making a deal. They don't operate power plants. They do this all over the country. When GenPower/Longview started this process here in Mon County shortly after the year 2000, they planned on building a gas-fired power plant in the Fort Martin Community on land owned by the Mon County Development Authority. At that time (early 2000s), natural gas prices were relatively high compared to coal and the movers and shakers here and elsewhere in West Virginia convinced GenPower/Longview Power that they needed to build a coal-fired plant, not a gas-fired plant, as WV is a coal state. The construction unions loved this as long as the plant was built with union labor. They did not care that all of the coal was coming from non-union mines. Coal-fired plants take much longer to build than gas-fired plants, so they pushed hard for the coal plant over the gas plant. They didn't care what was being built as long as they built it, and the longer it took to build, the better. Building and Construction Trades members turned out in droves from multiple states to speak in favor of the plant during our local public hearings. The poor, unrepresented union miners only had a couple of voices at these meetings. Fast forward to startup: Longview did not run at more than 40% capacity for the first three or so years. I lived across the river from the plant, and I could tell when they were running full bore and when they were merely idling with a little bit of steam coming out. The people of the Fort Martin community know even better. No wonder this "cleanest coal plant in the nation" supposedly has low emissions: it hardly ran for the first few years of operation! Longview's design-build model resulted in faulty design and faulty equipment. Sure there were wisps of steam coming out of the plant most of the time, but it was not fully operational until the equipment manufacturers, who became the creditors after Longview LLC filed for bankruptcy, poured millions of more dollars into it (over the $2+ billion it cost to build). Starting up a coal-fired power station can take three days. If you are nearby, you know when it happens. Longview promised to be clean. For cooling water, Longview promised to treat and use contaminated mine water which, when pumped down, would allow a flooded coal seam to be mined. A win-win, right? Well after Longview was almost ready to start up, they 'discovered' that the mine water was net acid! Imagine that. In this region of acid-mine drainage, they did not know, after many years and many analyses, that the mine water they would be pumping was acidic. You just have to see the orange stream channels around the Fort Martin community to know that! So Longview had to get cooling water from the Mon River after all, even though they promised in all of their permitting that they wouldn't need to do that. Then there is coal transportation: another lie. Longview touted themselves as a mine-mouth plant. In other words, they were supposedly situated right next to the mine, so the coal they used would not have to be barged on the river and trucked up to the power station. There was a little bit about the loooong conveyor belt they were building from the PA side of the mine.. But oh no, there wouldn't be those big pesky overweight trucks running up and down Fort Martin Rd starting in the early morning hours, running people off the road, creating all kinds of noise, and spewing nasty fumes. Oh no ... Oh yes! Just like the water lie, Longview now gets its coal from river barges and then trucks it up Fort Martin Hill to the plant, starting at 4 in the morning, destroying the road, creating noise and air pollution, and literally running other cars into the ditch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ Now back to the present: Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Burning it emits carbon dioxide and hastens climate change. Getting it out of the ground, compressed, and transported to where it is used is a whole other set of issues on top of that. Please call, write, or e mail all three commissioners on the Mon County Commission and tell them you are opposed to this next phase of Longview lies. Contact Info: Commissioner Thomas C. Bloom Commissioner Edward A. Hawkins Commissioner Sean P. Sikora Monongalia County Commission 243 High St Morgantown, WV, 26505 Phone: (304) 291-7257 https://www.monongaliacounty.gov Thanks for your attention if you made it this far, paula

1 0

Surprising Recovery of Red Spruce Shows Value of Clean Air Act | UVM Today | The University of Vermont
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 17 Sep '19

17 Sep '19

https://www.uvm.edu/uvmnews/news/surprising-recovery-red-spruce-shows-value… Surprising Recovery of Red Spruce Shows Value of Clean Air Act Since the 1960s, scientists at the University of Vermont have been documenting the decline of red spruce trees, casualties of the damage caused by acid rain on northeastern forests. But now, surprising new research shows that red spruce are making a comeback—and that a combination of reduced pollution mandated by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act and changing climate are behind the resurgence. The new study was led by Alexandra Kosiba of the University of Vermont with co-authors Paul Schaberg of the USDA Forest Service and University of Vermont researchers Shelly Rayback and Gary Hawley. The scientists examined data from 658 trees in 52 plots spanning five states—and found that more than 75 percent of red spruce trees and 90 percent of the plots exhibited increasing growth since 2001. “Our evidence suggests that the Clean Air Act is working to enhance conditions for red spruce,” says Kosiba, a staff scientist for the Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative at UVM. “This is a surprising and positive story.” The team’s study was published in the journal Science of thepublished in the journal Science of the Total Environment Total Environment. Recovery, for now The research team assessed the relationship between red spruce growth and factors that may influence growth such as tree age and diameter, elevation, slope, geographical position, and environmental variables including temperature, precipitation, a suite of climate measures—and the sulfur and nitrogen pollution that cause acid to be deposited in falling rain and snow. The results show a clear signal that “acid rain decline has helped red spruce recover, as well as higher temperatures in the fall, winter, and spring,” says Paul Schaberg, a researcher in the Forest Service’s Northern Research Station and adjunct professor at UVM. “Higher temperatures help some species and hurt others—right now, red spruce are benefiting, but they could be vulnerable to change in the future.” Red spruce have unique characteristics that make them particularly susceptible to acid rain. For example, they have little genetic variation and they have only moderate tolerance to the cold. But they are also able to “wake up” and photosynthesize during warm interludes of the dormant season, a characteristic that may better position the species to take advantage of recent climate shifts that extend the functional growing season. Yet the study notes that future changes in habitat suitability may not be as favorable to red spruce as those already experienced—it will likely depend on how extreme future changes are. “Red spruce are adapted to a certain range of climate conditions. Our work shows that reduced acid rain, warmer winter temperatures, and a lengthening growing season have benefited them recently,” says Kosiba. “But we don’t know how much change they’ll be able to tolerate in a warmer future.” The scientists are confident that their research represents the current state of red spruce in the entire region, according to Kosiba. “Our study included a broad range of tree ages and sizes as well as a variety of plot locations and characteristics,” she said. “We are confident that we are capturing the regional status of red spruce forests, not just a snapshot of a specific location.” “More broadly our work demonstrates the importance of using research to identify ecosystem problems that inform policy to mitigate those issues, and result in biological recovery,” noted Kosiba. Pioneers on the mountain Pioneering studies on acid rain were conducted by famed University of Vermont researcher Hub Vogelmann and other UVM scientists on Vermont’s iconic mountain, Camel’s Hump, in the 1960s. This scientific work was instrumental to the formation of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act that have brought reductions in acid deposition in the Northeast. Later research by Paul Schaberg, Gary Hawley, and others led to a deeper understanding of how calcium leaching from the soil was a key part of the mechanism that caused acid rain to damage spruce trees and other plants. “Calcium is slow to replenish in the ecosystem, so even though we've had this decline in acid rain, there has been a delay in seeing recovery,” says Kosiba who completed her doctorate in forest science at UVM in 2017. “There was some thought that, maybe, red spruce was not going to be a big component of our forests anymore, that there was too much damage.” Even as recently as 2003, scientists noted a major winter-kill of red spruce and acid rain was a key culprit. Although the pollution that causes acid rain in the Northeast has been greatly reduced in recent decades, there have been very few studies to show that this cleaner air has improved the health of the region’s forests. “So it’s great that we're finally seeing recovery of spruce,” Kosiba says, who notes that a recent study of red spruce in the Central Appalachians came to a similar conclusion. “There is a legacy of red spruce research in Vermont — starting with Hub Vogelmann. His work contributed to legislative change that reduced acid rain. Now our new research helps continue the story. It shows that the Clean Air Act works."

1 0

New Studies Conclude Role of Natural Gas As a “Bridge Fuel” Is Over
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 13 Sep '19

13 Sep '19

ABRA Update #244 – September 12, 2019 (Allegheny - Blue Ridge Alliance) Source: ABRA_Update_244_20190912.pdf > > > New Studies Conclude Role of Natural Gas As a “Bridge Fuel” Is Over > > Two new reports released by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) conclude that “the role of natural gas as a ‘bridge fuel’ is behind us.” In announcing the reports, RMI states: > The past decade has seen a dramatic reduction in the costs of wind, solar, and storage technologies. At the same time, sophisticated utilities and market operators are increasingly able to procure grid reliability services from these non-traditional resources. As a result, leading US utilities are now prioritizing investment in “clean energy portfolios” (CEPs)— combinations of renewables, storage, and demand-side management strategies—that can cost-effectively provide the same reliability services as traditional gas-fired power plants. > RMI analyzed the economics of every proposed gas-fired power plant in the United States and found: > • Over 90% of proposed gas-fired capacity would be more expensive than an equivalent CEP. > • If built, owners of these gas assets will face tens of billions of dollars of stranded costs with uncertain future revenues as clean energy continues to fall in price. > • US electricity customers could save US$29 billion (NPV) by investing in CEPs instead of these uneconomic gas plants. > • This reprioritization of capital would also avoid 100 million tons of CO2 emissions each year, equivalent to 5% of the current emissions of the US electricity system. > > RMI also projects that pipelines expected to ship gas to power plants will be underutilized: >>>> Growth in US economy-wide demand for natural gas has been driven almost exclusively by the power sector over the past 20 years. In turn, this demand growth has helped drive $115 billion in gas pipeline investment over the same period, and interstate gas pipeline developers have proposed another $30 billion in new investment through 2025 in part to meet the expected increase in demand. > > RMI’s analysis, however, shows that growth in power sector gas use will stop in the near future, with dramatic implications for pipelines that rely on revenue from new gas plants: > • In the Eastern United States, throughput on new gas pipelines will fall 20%–60% below presumed levels by 2035. > • This decline in utilization will lead to rising unit costs for delivered gas borne, in most cases, by captive utility customers. >> To download the two RMI reports – The Growing Market for Clean Energy Portfolios and Prospects for Gas Pipelines in the Era of Clean Energy – click below: > > https://rmi.org/insight/clean-energy-portfolios-pipelines-and-plants/ >> >> Another new report – released September 11 by the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Energy – concludes that the era of carbon-intensive energy derived from the burning of fossil fuels is coming to an end, and a cleaner, more reliable energy future based on renewables like wind and solar will be the new normal. The Speed of the Energy Transition offers compelling evidence that stakeholders in the global energy system must prepare for change urgently, because it is coming fast. >> The Speed of the Energy Transition Gradual or Rapid Change? | World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/the-speed-of-the-energy-transition

1 0

Back to School, to Strike for Climate! School-age children are protesting for new policies — Grid Magazine
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 11 Sep '19

11 Sep '19

https://www.gridphilly.com/grid-magazine/2019/9/10/back-to-school-to-strike… Back to School, to Strike for Climate! School-age children are protesting for new policies By Meenal Raval, The Grid (Philly), September 10, 2019 It’s September. With summer vacations almost over, children are getting ready to go back to school. And this year, back to school means back to an event called, “School Strike for Climate.” There’s a Global Climate Strike planned for Friday, September 20, days before the United Nations Climate Summit in New York City on September 23. The Global Climate Strike invites people of all ages to strike—by refusing to attend work and school—to disrupt the social order and to push our governments to act on the climate emergency we find ourselves in. Imagine the distruption possible when both young and old join forces. Started in August 2018 by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg of Sweden camping outside local government offices until they treat the climate crisis like the emergency it is, the movement has spread like wildfire—to Europe, Australia and within 4 months, the rest of the world. The School Strike for Climate is dubbed Youth Climate Strike US, and locally, Climate Strike PA. Why are our youth in the United States striking? Because we have only 11 years to prevent even worse effects of climate change. Their platform lists demands of the federal, state and local governments: A Green New Deal A declaration of a national climate emergency Compulsory education about the climate crisis Preservation of our public lands & wildlife Deem access to clean water a human right Locally, I’ve met many young people inspired by Greta, who rise for climate. Led by youth Sabirah Mahmud, a high school student who organized the Climate Strike rallies first in March and then again in May, launched a boot camp in July for youth new to Climate Strike PA. “The climate crisis is going to affect us all in different ways and it’s so important for us to take action,” Mahmud says. With 30 new people attending the organization’s boot camp—where students learned about civil disobedience, the climate crisis and more—the September school strike for climate is expected to bring more people. Mahmud tells us they may plan a march in Center City Philadelphia that morning. With details still being worked out as of this writing, the Climate Strike PA team asks interested parties to follow it on social media. “Let’s make September 20th the biggest strike to ever take place and make our governments accountable for their inaction against this global crisis,” she says. Mahmud also asks youth all over Pennsylvania to get their own school involved and “champion for a strike” wherever they are by contacting Climate Strike PA. Calling all kids! Over Memorial Day weekend, 12-year-old Hadassah Weinmartin organized the “first meeting ever” of the Sunrise Movement’s Northwest Philly hub. This first house party brought in 25 of her friends, and 10 of their parents. Since that first hub meeting, Weinmartin has organized another local meeting, as well as a presidential debate watch party. She’s the youngest with the Sunrise Philly team. Her message to us? “You’re never too young to make a difference.”

1 0

Interview with Dr. Sofia Valenzuela: Global potential of forest biotechnology - Alliance for Science
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 10 Sep '19

10 Sep '19

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2019/09/interview-global-potent… Interview with Dr. Sofia Valenzuela: Global potential of forest biotechnology A group of 15 leading scientists in forest biotechnology research recently published a letter in the Science Magazine, calling on international forest certification programs to review and modify their standards that exclude genetically modified (GM) and gene-edited trees. Although the review won‘t take place until October, researchers believe it‘s necessary to raise their voices through this and other initiatives, such as a public petition managed by the Alliance for Science and signed by more than 1000 people last January. Among the scientists who signed the letter, the only Latin American was Sofía Valenzuela, who is a biochemist from the University of Chile with a PhD in Natural Resources (TU Braunschweig, Germany). She works as a professor on the faculty of forestry sciences at the University of Concepcion and also as a researcher at the Biotechnology Center of the same university. In addition, she engages in science communication and activism in favor of gender equality in science and participated in the 2016 Alliance for Science Global Leadership Fellows Program executive session. Taking advantage of her expertise in the field, I conducted an interview in which Dr. Valenzuela explains in more detail research under way globally and in Latin America on GM and gene-edited trees, their potential in the context of climate change and the challenges of the field. Question: Since the commercialization of GM crops began in the mid-1990s, they have made significant progress in research, commercial and consumer approvals around the world. However, this same recombinant DNA technology applied to the forestry sector didn‘t experience the same commercial growth. What factors are behind this uneven development of genetic engineering in the agricultural and forestry sector? Answer: The development of GM trees takes several years, almost three decades; however, its acceptance and therefore its use in commercial plantations has been complex. On the one hand, most forestry companies are nationally and internationally certified and the certifying entities don‘t allow the use of GM trees in their production chain. Since 1988, nearly 1500 field trials have been carried out using GM trees, most of them in the United States and Brazil. The poplar corresponds to the species with the highest number of trials, followed by eucalyptus and pine. The traits that have been modified are growth, content and type of lignin, herbicide tolerance, reproductive development and cold tolerance, just to mention the main ones. These trials have been developed by both private entities and universities, among which we can mention Arborgen, Oregon State University and Futuragene. Some trials that have been able to advance on a larger scale correspond to Bt poplar in China (2003) and in 2014, Futuragene in Brazil obtained permission to commercialize GM eucalyptus with higher yield. On the other hand, there has been a lot of debate regarding the use of GM trees. Some people think that when we talk about GM trees, we talk about forests, which they associate with nature and say that nature shouldn’t be modified. In reality, the main objective is the use of these species in forest plantations. Otherwise, there is fear—unfounded—that unlike agricultural crops, GM trees will be planted for more than a decade, which would entail a greater environmental risk—mainly “gene flow.” Others argue that the main traits used in agriculture for the production of GM crops—herbicide tolerance and Bt, or both—aren‘t of great economic relevance for the forestry sector. Despite these public concerns, there is sufficient scientific evidence that GM trees have no major negative impact on the environment or human/animal health. In fact, if GM forest species were allowed for commercial plantation purposes, we could have higher productivity per hectare, which would reduce the pressure for more land for plantations. This is why, led by Dr. Steve Strauss of Oregon State University, we made the letter and a petition that has been signed by more than 1000 people, so that the use of GM or genetically edited trees is changed and accepted. We are sure that there is scientific evidence to allow the use of these trees, and this may bring benefits to society, but especially small and medium farmers, who will have the opportunity to have better trees for their plantations. Dr. Sofía Valenzuela Q: Aside from the famous case of genetic modification of the Hawaiian papaya tree, which saved the Islands’ farms from the ringspot virus without having to use conventional control methods, which trees for food or industrial use are commercially approved or already planted in the world? What socioeconomic and environmental impact have they generated? A: It is necessary to differentiate fruit trees from forest species for commercial purposes. In the case of fruit trees there is a greater acceptance, both from producers, farmers and even consumers. There are several studies with GM fruit trees, including some of them ready to be marketed, especially in the USA, given that the genetic modifications used confer tolerance to diseases or pathogens in fruit species. This implies reducing both the use of pesticides and losses in production while maintaining a fruit industry that could be threatened by pathogens, which will be increasingly frequent in the face of the climate change scenario. It‘s likely that given the commercial and social impact that these trees or fruit species have, it will be easier for them to be accepted and commercialized by both farmers and consumers. In the case of forest trees for commercial purposes, it has been, for some reason that I fail to understand, much more complex to gain acceptance and use. Q: Among the various developments of GM trees that you have seen or investigated, which ones stand out for their potential or are in advanced phases of research/field trials? Which countries could be the first to take advantage of them on their lands? A: Most of the research on forest trees has been in poplar, where different genetic modifications have been made. Many of them are focused on obtaining trees with more cellulose and less lignin, which increases productivity per hectare—more cellulose/ha. In this case, many field trials have been carried out and different events have been obtained with a greater production of cellulose—without changes in the tree phenotype—so this would be a case that could be marketed promptly. However, there are also studies to have disease-tolerant trees and for better tolerance of environmental conditions, such as drought. It has worked with other species such as eucalyptus, poplar, chestnut, just to name a few. Some companies like Arbogen conducted cold-tolerant eucalyptus tests in the USA; China a few years ago planted Bt poplar; in Brazil Futuragene obtained permission to market a eucalyptus with better wood quality. Moreover, this technology could be used in the future for the control of invasive plant species. In the short term and seeing the investment, bets that are being made that possibly China will one of the first countries where GM trees will be authorized and result in commercial plantations. Q: Regarding the new techniques of genome editing like CRISPR, are there countries advancing in new developments with this technology? Is there any ongoing debate whether they will be regulated as GMOs or “natural mutants,” as is the case in Europe for agricultural crops? A: With applications in the forestry sector there are many advances with this technology in China and the USA, mainly, where they have investigated in poplar. As in the case of agricultural crops, for trees edited with CRISPR/Cas it is the same debate. I think this could be a new opportunity to have edited trees in plantations. It has been a long battle to have GM trees commercially, after almost three decades we haven‘t succeeded in authorizing their use. I see that the genome editing opens a new door for us to have these trees in commercial plantations. It is not that someone wants to replace all plantations with GM trees, but they can be a good alternative in specific cases. Like agricultural crops, it‘s one of the alternatives. What is requested is that the option of its use be given. Q: At the Latin American and Chilean level, what biotechnological forestry developments are being carried out? Do you lead any at the University of Concepción? A: In Latin America, research in forest biotechnology has focused mainly on the development of biotechnological tools that support forest breeding programs and shorten the selection times of the best trees. The first investigations focused on the development of micropropagation techniques, followed with the use of molecular markers for both clonal genotyping and for marker-assisted breeding. Nowadays, progress is being made with the use of genomic selection, GWAS and genome sequencing of forest species, as well as in the validation of candidate genes associated with different traits of interest, which will be the basis for GM trees in the medium term—once we have the legislation that allows it. In Brazil, a GM eucalyptus has already been generated. There is progress and if we could have the authorization to use these trees we would be conducting more studies in the area. In our case, we are investigating the use of genomic selection in forest species of interest in Chile. Also in the validation of candidate genes that confer tolerance to abiotic conditions—cold and drought. For now we use the Arabidopisis model plant and next year we hope to have the option of validating them in poplar at the laboratory level, with the authorization of Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG). For this reason, I am currently in the laboratory of Dr. Vincent Chiang, at Northeast Forestry University in Harbin, China, with whom we are collaborating in this area. Q: In the context of climate change, population growth and the need to produce more using less land, what new useful features could forest biotechnology offer to meet these challenges? A: Today the concept of bioeconomy is increasingly imposed, where we could replace the use of fossil fuel with renewable natural resources, with trees as one of them. With these, we can obtain not only cellulose, but many biomaterials from cellulose, lignin and hemicelluloses, the three main components of wood. At the same time, wood is an excellent building material, not only for houses, but also for buildings. Therefore, we may need more area to meet these needs. An alternative is to look for more land for this, and another is to obtain trees that have a better quality of wood (for different goals) and are more productive, healthy and tolerant of extreme environments—drought, cold, heat, salinity. This can be done—and there are already some examples—with GM trees or developed through gene editing. Q: In Chile, the endemic tree Araucaria Araucana—a very important tree in our culture, especially for the native peoples of the south—was declared endangered last year. Could genetic modification offer a solution to the millenary forests of Araucaria that are disappearing? A: It could definitely be an alternative. Once the cause that is affecting the Araucaria is known, we could find a solution through genetic engineering or gene editing. This doesn‘t mean that alternatives can’t also be sought or used in parallel or in conjunction with conventional breeding. This is a case very similar to what happened with the American chestnut in the USA, where the species was affected by a fungus and there were very few specimens. Two options were carried out: one was to generate a hybrid with an Asian chestnut (pathogen tolerant) and the other was the development of a genetically modified chestnut tolerant to the pathogen. And thanks to this, today there are many GM chestnut plants that can be planted, recovering the species Now, together with creating a GM tree, a lot of research goes hand in hand; for example, knowing the genome of the species, evaluating the effect that the gene or genes will have on the new phenotype and carrying out complete and complex environmental risk and benefit assessments, among many other studies. That is, a GM Araucaria is not going to be done in the laboratory and immediately taken to the field, but it will go through a series of detailed scientific studies before being released to the environment. This is a mechanism that new agricultural crops or forestry varieties aren‘t subjected to when they are obtained by other techniques of conventional breeding. Q: In mid-2017, the IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference was held at the University of Concepción, which suffered vandalism by activists who protested against the “genetic contamination towards native forests” claiming that this type of research ends up “filling the pockets of big companies.” What would be your message for opponents who share this type of fear or objection? A: Yes, I remember it very well. First, there is a lot of misinformation. For example, a clone is confused with a genetically modified tree, so in Chile there are clonal plantations, but they are not genetically modified. The language is also critical. On the one hand we have commercial plantations and on the other hand we have forests. In order for any [gene flow] contamination to occur in native forests, the species must be sexually compatible, and if we think of the commercial species used in Chile—pine and eucalyptus—they are both exotic, and not compatible with the native species. If one day we could have commercial plantations with GM trees, you can be sure that these will have been rigorously evaluated, much more than any other agricultural crop or non-GM tree, so there will be scientific evidence that they won‘t cause damage to the environment. In the end, GM trees shouldn‘t be feared. They aren‘t sinister, they don‘t cause damage to the environment; on the contrary, they will allow healthier trees with less pesticide application, better management and at the same time a higher productivity per hectare. Q: Among the 15 scientists who signed the letter in Science, you and Heather Coleman were the only women. In your opinion, what are the causes behind this gender disparity? How can we encourage more women to dedicate themselves to science and your research field? A: Yes, it is a problem. In the forestry field, the research led by female scientist must be close to 15-20 percent. In fact, if we do a search for forest biotechnology in the WOS, we will see that the main and most cited authors are all men. We noted this low participation (or presence) of researchers during the IUFRO Tree Biotechnology 2017 congress, which we held in Concepción. That was a first step, making visible that the main researchers are men, almost all from the northern hemisphere! This allowed two things. One, that for the first time two women were chosen as deputies in the tree molecular biology section of the IUFRO (2.04.06)—in this case, Heather Coleman and me—and this year four young researchers joined. Secondly, this year’s IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Congress held in Raleigh, NC, USA, included a panel of diversity and the opportunity for young researchers to make oral presentations on their work. We hope those elements will remain in subsequent versions of this congress, with the next to be held in 2021 in China. This has allowed the community in forest biotechnology to start reflecting on how to have more women in a subject area that is very masculine. One of the missions is to have role models, to give greater visibility to the leading researchers in this field who are young and also to those who belong to minority groups. It‘s not easy to change the status quo, but for now we are having more actions and support from our male colleagues. For example, some of them have promised not to attend panels comprised solely of men and to support more female researchers, especially when they decide to be mothers, which is a critical stage where the academic careers of women are affected. Though equal numbers of men and women pursue university careers, for some reason the number of women leading research working groups barely reaches 20 percent. We are taking the first steps to reverse the situation. I hope it will not take us a century, as some studies indicate, but that we will be able to have equity in science and forest biotechnology by 2050. Sent from my iPad

1 0

West Virginia Air Pollution Sources
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 25 Aug '19

25 Aug '19

> Subject: NSR Permits for Review (Current) > > > https://dep.wv.gov/daq/Pages/NSRPermitsforReviewCurrent.aspx/ > > > NSR Permits for Review (Current) > NSR Permits for Review - 2018 to present > > ONLY AVAILABLE ON OUR DATABASE!! PLEASE READ DIRECTIONS BELOW > > Below is a list of applications for permit, draft permits, final permits, evaluations, and other documents that are in conjuction with registrations. We have them listed alphabetically by county, company, then facility. If you would like to view any of the documents listed, please click HERE to access our database. When you open the database to login simply enter DEP as the user and DEP as the password. (ALL CAPS) Once on the site, click on PERMITSAIR and you can search by any of the parameters listed. If you know the permit number, which is is the second column below, you may enter it into the SECONDARY ID NUMBER field. > > Use the CTRL + the F keys as a shortcut for the Find command to search text on this web page. Pressing CTRL + F will bring up a search box. Just type in that search box and it will locate the text you are looking for on this page. Examples would be county names, company names (full or partial) or permit numbers. >

1 0

Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars | Environment | The Guardian
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 28 Jul '19

28 Jul '19

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-… Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars ExxonMobil and others pursued research into technologies, yet blocked government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, findings show Suzanne GoldenbergLast modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 18.04 GMT The patent records were among a new trove of documents published by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the public relations challenge for Exxon. Photograph: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters The forerunners of ExxonMobil patented technologies for electric cars and low emissions vehicles as early as 1963 – even as the oil industry lobby tried to squash government funding for such research, according to a trove of newly discovered records. Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla. Scientists for the companies patented technologies to strip carbon dioxide out of exhaust pipes, and improve engine efficiency, as well as fuel cells. They also conducted research into countering the rise in carbon dioxide emissions – including manipulating the weather. Esso, one of the precursors of ExxonMobil, obtained at least three fuel cell patents in the 1960s and another for a low-polluting vehicle in 1970, according to the records. Other oil companies such as Phillips and Shell also patented technologies for more efficient uses of fuel. However, the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil lobby, opposed government funding of research into electric cars and low emissions vehicles, telling Congress in 1967: “We take exception to the basic assumption that clean air can be achieved only by finding an alternative to the internal combustion engine.” This 1970 patent, assigned to Esso (now ExxonMobil), is a design for a low-polluting engine system. Photograph: Handout And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008. The patent records were among a new trove of documents published on Thursday by the Center for International Environmental Law, and deepen the legal and public relations challenge for Exxon. “What we saw was an array of patent technologies that demonstrated that these companies had the technologies they needed and could have commercialised to help address the problem of C02 pollution,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Ciel. “They then turned to Congress and said you don’t need to invest in electrical vehicle research because the research is ongoing and it’s robust.” The findings echo those in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, which explored the deliberate destruction of GM’s first electric vehicles. Alan Jeffers, an Exxon spokesman, insisted he could not comment directly on the documents as he was unable to access the Center for International Environmental law website on which they were published on Thursday morning. In an emailed statement, Jeffers said: “The Guardian gave us only a few hours to comment on documents from four decades ago.” Jeffers went on: “This further illustrates the Guardian’s well-established bias on climate change issues which has been demonstrated previously through its keep it in the ground campaign.” He said the company believed the risks of climate change were real, was researching lower emission technologies, and engaged in “constructive dialogue” with policy makers about energy and climate change. Researchers discovered more than 20 such patents filed by oil companies from as early as the 1940s for technologies that could help in the development of electric cars. However, Ron Dunlop, president of Sun Oil and API chairman, told a joint hearing of the commerce committee in 1967 that government funding of research into electric cars would be misplaced – because the oil companies were so advanced in their research of cleaner cars. “We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.” Muffett said the findings were the result of three years of research and were not exhaustive. “The question is what did they do to try to commercialise these technologies, knowing what they did about climate change,” he went on. The revelations, the second set of documents released by Muffett’s organisation, reinforce charges by campaigners that Exxon was well aware that the burning of fossil fuels was a main driver of climate change – despite its public posture of doubt. In addition to the technologies with potential for electric cars, Exxon and other oil companies were actively researching methods to cut emissions of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas. In another historic document that surfaced last month, a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon admitted the company had the technology to cut carbon emissions in half. However, the corporate memo dating from 1977 said it would be prohibitively expensive – doubling the cost of electricity generation, according to the documents obtained by Desmog blog. New York and 17 other attorneys general, including DC and the US Virgin Islands, are investigating whether the oil company lied to investors and the public about the threat of climate change. Campaigners plan to further turn up the heat on the company next week when Exxon holds its annual shareholder meeting in Dallas. Campaigners have argued for more than a decade that Exxon bankrolled a network of front groups and conservative think tanks aimed at discrediting well-established science – confusing the public and delaying governments efforts to cut the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for warming. Those efforts to put Exxon on the spot gathered pace after Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times reported that the company’s own scientists knew as early as the 1970s that greenhouse gases caused climate change. The attorney general of the US Virgin Islands has subpoenaed Exxon to turn over email, documents and statements over the last decades. Exxon has dismissed the investigations as politically motivated. However, the company has reversed its opposition to fuel cell technology. Earlier this month, the company announced it had been conducting a joint research effort on fuel cell power plants with FuelCell. The initiative, which got underway in 2011, aims to route the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning power plants into fuel cells, producing low emissions electricity. The company has estimated it can cut 90% of carbon dioxide emissions. “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action,” Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chief executive, told the US Energy Association after receiving its annual award.

1 0

Greater prevalence of congenital heart defects in areas with high intensity of oil and gas well activity - CU Anschutz Today
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 21 Jul '19

21 Jul '19

of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Search for: WebmailUCD AccessCanvasQuick Links Evidence of relationship between birth defects and oil, gas activity Greater prevalence of congenital heart defects in areas with high intensity of oil and gas well activity July 18, 201hare Mothers living near more intense oil and gas development activity have a 40-70% higher chance of having children with congenital heart defects (CHDs) compared to those living in areas of less intense activity, according to a new study from researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health. “We observed more children were being born with a congenital heart defect in areas with the highest intensity of oil and gas well activity,” said the study’s senior author Lisa McKenzie, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. At least 17 million people in the U.S. and 6% of Colorado’s population live within one mile of an active oil and gas well site. Lisa McKenzie, PhD, MPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health The study was published today July 18th in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International. The researchers studied 3,324 infants born in Colorado from 2005-2011. They looked at infants with several specific types of CHDs. https://www.cuanschutztoday.org/greater-prevalence-of-congenital-heart-defe…

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC