Keystone, Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change

Last Friday President Obama announced that the TransCanada request for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline was denied, stating that the “State Department has decided that the Keystone XL Pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States. I agree with that decision. “

The President went on to say “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face -- not acting.”

“As long as I’m President of the United States, America is going to hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world. And three weeks from now, I look forward to joining my fellow world leaders in Paris, where we’ve got to come together around an ambitious framework to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can.”

Only a few days before, TransCanada had requested that the United States suspend their application for the Keystone XL Pipeline to cross the U.S. Canadian border. That request was denied. In the TransCanada press release they said: “We are disappointed with the President’s choice to deny the Keystone XL application. ...We believe that a pipeline will eventually be built as this is the safest, most economically efficient means of getting crude oil to market.”

Back in January of 2014, the U.S. Department of State released the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The executive summary states that Keystone XL is “unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs and supply-demand scenarios.”

There is currently a pipeline Keystone I that runs east from Hardesty Saskatchewan to Manitoba and then south through the Dakotas to Steel City, Nebraska. It is a less direct route and is a lower volume pipeline than the proposed Keystone XL. The Keystone XL would have replaced the Keystone I with a new and better pipeline. Keystone I is old and this would be an upgrade to the oil transport infrastructure. Keystone II runs from Steel City to Cushing, Oklahoma at the Oklahoma storage facilities. Keystone III running from the Cushing Oklahoma to the Nederland, Texas began delivering crude oil from Cushing, OK, to the oil refineries in Texas in January 2014. The Gulf Coast Project, Keystone III, did not require a Presidential Permit because it does not cross an international border.

Denial of the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline is a symbolic gesture. According to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline application, the pipeline would not have had any significant impact on the environment or whether the oil sands were processed into crude oil. I just don’t understand why this took so long. TransCanada Corporation made the second application for a Presidential Permit to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline in May 2012 after the Department of State rejected their original 2008 application in January 2012.

In three weeks at the climate talks in Paris Keystone XL may not even be a topic of conversation. Coal use in China has been big revelation. As reported in the New York Times last week, in September 2015, the National Bureau of Statistics of China published China’s energy statistics for 2013, as well as revised statistics for the years 2000 to 2012. These statistics reveal that China was burning up to 17% more coal than previously reported. According to the New York Times that 17% is equivalent to 70% of U.S. coal use.

When the International Energy Agency, IEA, has released its preliminary 2014 estimates of world CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Global emissions of carbon dioxide were believed to have remained at 32.3 billion metric tonnes in 2014, unchanged from the preceding year. However, world emissions of carbon dioxide is a calculated number, not a measured number. So, that number will now have to be revised as well as how that data was interpreted. The IEA says it is now awaiting Chinese data from their energy census and other revisions before issuing any update to the world emissions summary.

In the 40 years in which the IEA had been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions, there had only been three times in which emissions have stood still or fallen compared to the previous year, and all were associated with global economic weakness: the early 1980's; 1992 and 2009. The preliminary 2014 data lead the IEA to suggest that efforts to mitigate climate change may be having a more pronounced effect on emissions than had previously been thought as CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP had inched down, decoupling growth from carbon emissions pointing to perhaps a sustainable future.

That view on carbon emissions and the economy will now have to be revised despite the President’s observation that “ over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow, America has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.”

In a report released Monday the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced that the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had risen above 400 parts per million last winter dipping below that level again in spring when plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The WMO expects atmospheric carbon dioxide to remain above 400 parts per million during all of 2016.

Building a Church and School in the Rural Crescent

St. Katherine Drexel Parish and School has requested a special use permit to build a church with a 1,000 seat sanctuary and 550 seat fellowship hall and classrooms for 260 children in K-8th grades, administrative offices, rectory, meeting areas for community groups and related facilities on a 28 acre parcel of land on the north west corner of Waterfall Road and Route 15 across from the 7/11. Because the land is in the Rural Crescent, the St. Katherine will require a special use permit.

On Thursday night St. Katherine had an informational meeting held at the Evergreen Fire Station to present the project to the public. St. Katherine plans to build the religious facility in phases. The meeting was fairly evenly split between supporters of the church and Rural Crescent preservationists who felt that building a large Church and school is inconsistent with the social objectives of maintaining a wildlife habitat, preservation of farmland, preservation of groundwater and surface water supplies, protection of historically significant areas and scenic views, and prevention of development on fractured rock systems highly susceptible to contamination. The basic zoning that exists now in the Rural Crescent is A1- one house per 10 acres. St. Katherine plans to build the religious facility in phases.

Officially, the Rural Crescent, established in 1998, encompasses almost 116,000 acres, but little of that total is still agricultural land. The Rural Crescent includes about 23,000 acres of federal land in the forest and Manassas Battlefield, 55,100 acres that are already developed including Quantico and existing developments, about 2,600 acres that are permanently protected land, 8,200 acres that have development plans already approved and almost 28,000 acres that are undeveloped and unprotected and could be preserved as open space and farmland.

The Rural Crescent depends on groundwater as the sole water supply for all the existing and future residents, and St. Katherine Drexel Parish and School will depend on an on-site well (or wells) for water supply and septic for sewage. How any proposed land use will impact water and groundwater sustainability should be one of the first questions asked, but is not considered in the application for the special use permit. The right of existing property owners to their water is primary and valuable and should not be compromised or impaired. Because there are natural fluctuations in groundwater levels it is easy to mask or ignore signs of the beginnings of destruction of the water resources that we depend on. Fluctuations in climate or rainfall and imperfect measurements and vantage points mask trends from clear view.

While groundwater is a renewable resource it is NOT unlimited. The sad truth is that we do not know how much water we have in the Culpeper basin, nor do we know what the sustainable rate of ground water use is. We can only hope that the Culpepper Basin is adequate to sustain the rural crescent in the next drought, but the USGS tells us that our groundwater basin is under stress. Sustainability of groundwater is hyper-local. Little is known about the sustainability of our groundwater basins, but potential problems are still at a manageable stage. We now have tools (groundwater models and data from the GRACE project) that can help develop a picture of the volume of the water within the groundwater basin and at what rate it is being used and at what rate it is being recharged. We need to know if the current and planned use of our groundwater is sustainable even in drought years. We need to understand how ground cover by roads, parking lots and buildings will impact groundwater recharge and what level of groundwater withdrawals are sustainable on site to determine if a proposed additional use of groundwater is sustainable before it is granted.

The proposed church and school will cover over 20% of the land with buildings, parking, walkway and other impervious surfaces that will change the hydrology of the site reducing ground water recharge in the area around the school at the same time that the school and church will increase groundwater use to an estimated 12,500 gallons a day (3-4 million gallons a year) according to the Pacific Institute. That is equivalent to building around 50 homes on the 28 acres. With reduced groundwater recharge in the immediate area of the school from all the paving, there is a real possibility that the pumping from the school will create a large cone of depression to draw water from adjacent properties or greater depth that could cause nearby existing wells to go dry, and people will have homes without water –worthless. This is a risk that has not been examined, studied or modeled. This has happened elsewhere. Once the hydrology is destroyed, it cannot be restored. The special use permit should not be granted to a use that will significantly reduce the groundwater recharge to the immediate area while taking the essential water resources of their neighbors without first studying the impact.

The CO2 Diet Update

On Friday, October 23rd the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final Clean Power Plan rule in the Federal Register, starting a 90-day comment period. The publication of the rule gives states and energy companies the opportunity to comment or in this case file lawsuits to challenge the legality of the rule. As expected 26 states immediately filed suit in Federal Court to stop the regulations from taking effect. Twenty four of the states joined together lead by West Virginia and filed a Petition for Review and Stay Motions, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the states argue the rule is illegal and will have devastating impacts on the states and their citizens. Virginia did not join the suit.

The states claim that the rule promulgated under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act exceeds EPA’s authority by unlawfully forcing states to fundamentally alter state resource-planning and energy policy by shifting from coal-fired generation to other sources of power generation that has a significant emphasis on natural gas fired generation and renewable sources. The states also say the rule is illegal because it seeks to require states to regulate coal-fired power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, even though EPA already regulates those same plants under Section 112 of the act.

In its final form the Clean Power Plan attempts to create a nationally consistent standard for each type of electrical generating plant. This is consistent with the requirements of section 111 of the Clean Air Act- to create nationally uniform standards that do not favor one region or state over another. The final rule’s “best systems of emission reductions” focuses only supply‐side measures that reduce CO2 emissions from power plants, and does not mandate any consumer demand‐side energy efficiency. Though EPA removed demand side measures from the rule to align with section 111; nonetheless, EPA expects that demand‐side energy efficiency will be a significant component of state plans under the Clean Power Plan. As a matter of fact, EPA is forecasting that people will use less electricity because the cost of electricity will go up. The Clean Power Plan is projected to reduce electric bills by about $7 per month by 2030 despite electric prices increasing.

The states in their arguments are attempting to have the court issue a stay because it will take years to adjudicate the case and in the meantime this regulation will reshape the power generation and energy infrastructure, natural gas production and environment to meet the demands of the. There will also be significant fiscal impacts. With this regulation the EPA is now taking control of the power generation sector of the economy to remake that industry in a less carbon intensive and more efficient vision.

These regulations will mark the end of the era of using coal to generate electricity in power plants. This era began with the oil crisis in 1972 and will end with the EPA issuing CO2 “budgets” and potentially creates a regional or national carbon trading market for “carbon credits.” These regulations require the shift towards natural gas as the fuel of choice for a significant portion of the power generation. Using natural gas to fire power generation plans will require the building of more gas pipelines and the expansion of Fracking. This will certainly impact the economy and natural environment of states with coal mining and limited gas delivery infrastructure like Virginia. The DMME is proposing fracking regulations in Virginia and there are proposals for additional gas pipelines in the Commonwealth.

Power plants are the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States accounting for about 33% of greenhouse gas release (and slightly more of carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane (CH4). According to the EPA CO2 represents 84% of mass of greenhouse gas emissions and that the climate models indicate to be the cause of climate change. The new regulations will require power plants to cut their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels or 18% from 2013 levels by using a combination of approaches.

EPA mandates the interim and final goal for each state in the regulation. The EPA expects the regulations to result in a reduction in the electricity used per capita and in the CO2 generated per megawatt hour of electricity produced. The states must provide a plan for achieving that limit that is acceptable to the EPA by June 30, 2016. If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not grant a stay, then the states will have to move forward with implementation to be in compliance. The Congressional Review Act is unlikely to be able to stop this regulation. This act passed during the Clinton administration allows Congress to disapprove and vacate new regulations within 60 days, but operates essentially like any other legislation. Majority votes in both the house and senate are required. In addition the legislation would need presidential approval or enough votes to override a presidential veto, unlikely.

Despite legal challenges to the regulation, states must provide a plan for reaching their mandated goals acceptable to the EPA by June 30, 2016. The EPA is offering “incentives” to early adopters. The EPA is ensuring early adoption of plans so that even if legal challenges prevail, the rule cannot be undone. The EPA is ensuring early adoption of plans so that even if legal challenges prevail, the rule cannot be undone. EPA is providing a Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) to reward early investments in renewable energy generation that generate carbon dioxide-free electricity or demand-side energy efficiency measures that reduce end-use energy demand like electrical meters that can shut down certain appliances during periods of peak demand.

Fire Injures Six During Chemistry Demonstration

It was second period last Friday and it would be a four day weekend in Fairfax County, Virginia. A high school chemistry teacher a W.T. Woodson High School was performing what is commonly known as the ‘Rainbow Flame Demonstration.”

In its most exciting (and dangerous) form the “Rainbow Flame” demonstration is performed on an open bench typically using methanol as the flammable solvent. The solvent is poured out on the bench and lit and metal salts are tossed (or spooned) into the flame to change its color. Barium Chloride BaCl2*2H2O makes the flame light green, Calcium Chloride CaCl2 turns the flame orange red, Copper Chloride CuCl2 burns a beautiful blue/green, Lithium Chloride LiCl produces a hot pink flame, Potassium Chloride KCl a light lilac colored flame, Sodium Chloride NaCl produces a yellow flame, and Strontium Chloride SrCl2 produces a red flame. In a darkened room it is really quite spectacular. It is also dangerous.

from a U tube demonstration

When this Rainbow Flame demonstration is carried out on an open bench, the conditions for a flash fire are easily met, and there have been several widely reported classroom accidents. Highly flammable solvents, such as methanol, can produce heavier-than-air vapors that move across surfaces and down toward the floor where they spread undetected among viewers of the demonstration. A flame, spark, or even very hot surfaces can ignite the vapors resulting in a sudden flash fire or worse if there is an open container of solvent. Fire can also flash up when additional methanol is poured on the hot surface for another round. According to Jonathan Sanderson of Science Demo, the cause of a series of accidents reported in the US has been the “demonstrators topping up the flame straight from the methanol bottle, leading to the ignition of a large volume of fuel vapour.”

Fire needs to be treated with respect and handled using proper safety precautions. Numerous accidents have occurred with the Rainbow Flame demonstration. Yet, other instructors have performed the demonstration hundreds of times without incident and I’ve done a version of the demonstration myself. The demonstration can be safely performed under a ventilation hood and strictly controlled by pouring a limited amount of solvent into petri dishes or saucers that contain the various salts, then sealing the solvent bottle and NOT refilling the dishes. A careful and controlled experiment (while wearing safety goggles and an apron) loses some of the wow factor of the open flame. This demonstration is dangerous if it is not performed under a ventilation hood and strictly controlled single round of solvent. Never open a bottle of fuel near a naked flame or source of heat, and that the correct procedure here is to make sure the surface or petri dishes are cold before adding a small amount of fuel, then sealing the fuel bottle and removing it to a safe distance, before lighting the mixture. Safety glasses and aprons are a must especially when dealing with a classroom of students.

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board issued a warning message for this experiment/demonstration back in 2013 along with a video interview with a victim of a Rainbow Flame demonstration fire that can be seen on U tube. 

Joaquin Brought Historic Flooding and Death to South Carolina

from USGS

Very heavy rainfall fell across South Carolina during October 1–5, 2015, as a result of the low-pressure system that funneled tropical moisture from Hurricane Joaquin into the State. Though the Hurricane never made landfall the storm that hit the eastern half of South Carolina caused major flooding and destruction throughout the region.

Almost 27 inches of rain fell near Mount Pleasant. Other areas experienced more than 20 inches of rain. Seventeen people died. This week the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released its report: “Preliminary Peak Stage and Streamflow Data at Selected USGS Streamgaging Stations for the South Carolina Flood of October 2015.”

The USGS operates over 9,800 stream gauges nationwide with about 170 of them in South Carolina. Streamflow data collected from the stream gauges is used to better understand flooding, improve forecasting ability and document the extent of flooding that occurred. During flooding, streamflow data are vital for flood warning, forecasting, and emergency management. The long-term streamflow data are used to assess risk and changes in risk and to mitigate flooding through flood-plain management and in the design or repair of infrastructure.

The storm system caused significant widespread freshwater flooding throughout the State. USGS data shows the highest rainfall total of 26.9 inches near Mount Pleasant, and at the Charleston Airport rainfall totals set new records during the storm and its aftermath. Seventeen of the USGS streamgages recorded the highest peak streamflow and/or river height since those streamgages were installed. One of the streamgages, on the Black River at Kingstree, South Carolina, recorded its largest peak in the 87 years it has existed. An additional 15 USGS streamgages recorded peaks in the top 5 for their periods of record.

According to John Shelton, the USGS hydrologist who oversaw the agency’s field response and gauging operations in South Carolina, "This was absolutely an historic flood for South Carolina." The L.A. Times reported that in rural counties, conservative estimates of agricultural loses are expected to be at least $300 million, and total damages across the State will likely exceed $1 billion.

A long time reader emailed me to ask if she should have flood insurance. To help you decide you can enter your address in the FEMA web-site and see what flood zone (if any) you are in. Flood hazard areas are identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This is the familiar base flood or 100-year flood zone. SFHAs are labeled as Zone A, AO, AH, etc. or Zone V, etc. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2% annual-chance (or 500-year) flood zone. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which is where I live, are the areas outside the SFHA are labeled Zone C or Zone X and are unshaded on the maps.

The term "100-year flood" is misleading because it leads people to believe that it happens only once every 100 years. The truth is that an uncommonly big flood can happen any year. The term "100-year flood" is really a statistical designation, and there is a 1-in-100 chance that a flood this size will happen during any year. If you live on the designated floodplain, the chances are about 1 in 2 that you will experience a significant flood during your lifetime. In addition, development changes the flooding characteristics of the land, in many cases increasing it. So, I simply do not live in flood plains.

Sunscreen Killing Coral Reefs

from NOAA

According to scientists 10% of the world's reefs have been completely destroyed. For several years this has been attributed entirely to warming of the oceans which can cause corals to sicken and die. The most obvious sign that coral is sick is coral bleaching. That is when either the algae inside die, or the algae leave the coral. The algae are what give coral its color, so without the algae the coral has no color and the white of the limestone shell shines through the transparent coral bodies. The algae are the coral’s source of food.

Three weeks ago the, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA) researchers and their partners released a paper that detailing their discovery that a sunscreen chemical commonly used in many soaps, cosmetics, and body fragrances is highly toxic to corals. The team's data show that even very low concentrations of benzophenone-2, or BP-2, can quickly kill juvenile corals causing the coals to bleach. The team also found that BP-2 causes colorful corals to bleach, and can potentially induce or increase the frequency of mutation in corals by causing damage to their DNA.

In a study published last week in published by the Archives of Environmental Contamination and “Toxicology, Toxicopathological Effects of the Sunscreen UV Filter, Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), on Coral Planulae and Cultured Primary Cells and Its Environmental Contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands” another group of scientists looked at the Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3) which is used in the United States for sunscreens.

By sampling the ocean waters the researchers found that oxybenzone, commonly used in sunscreens in the United States (and Europe), is in relatively high concentrations in the waters around the more popular coral reefs in Hawaii, and the Caribbean. It is seemingly washing off divers and swimmers. The chemical not only kills the coral, it causes DNA damage in the adult coral and deforms the DNA in coral in the larval stage, making it unlikely they can develop properly. The highest concentrations of oxybenzone were found in reefs most popular with tourists.

Then in laboratory experiments, the team exposed coral larvae and adult corals to increasing concentrations of oxybenzone. They discovered that oxybenzone deforms coral larvae by trapping them in their own skeleton, making then unable to float with currents and disperse. The Oxybenzone was also found to caure coral bleaching, which is the major source of coral death world wide.

BP-2  and oxybenzone are additives in personal care products. BP-2 has been used since the 1960s to protect against the damaging effects of ultraviolet light. Oxybenzone or Benzopheone-3 is used in the United States for sunscreen. It is slathered on all our skin as recommended by dermatologists, government and beauty magazines. The ubiquitous use of sunscreen has been a much more successful campaign than recycling. The problems is the effects of BP-2 and oxybenzone on the earth. Neither chemical is removed from most municipal wastewater treatment facilities and it simply flows though the treatment train and out with the released water often directly released in coastal waters threatening near-shore life and is simply washed off of divers.

BP-2 is no longer approved for use in the United States for sunscreens, but it is used in many beauty products. Oxybenzone has replaced BP-2 in most sunscreens.According to the Environmental Working Group, “Oxybenzone is a sunscreen ingredient associated with photoallergic reactions. This chemical absorbs through the skin in significant amounts. It contaminates the bodies of 97% of Americans according to research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The newest study was lead by Craig Downs, executive director and researcher at the non-profit scientific organization Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia. The scientists collected samples from reefs in Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Eilat, Israel diving into the water themselves. They wore no personal hygiene products during the dives.

“The use of oxybenzone-containing products needs to be seriously deliberated in islands and areas where coral reef conservation is a critical issue,” Downs said. “We have lost at least 80 % of the coral reefs in the Caribbean.” The scientists estimated that around 14,000 tons of sunscreen containing 1%-10% oxybenzone are washed into the Oceans each year.

As Dr. Downs pointed out “Any small effort to reduce oxybenzone pollution could mean that a coral reef survives a long, hot summer, or that a degraded area recovers. Everyone wants to build coral nurseries for reef restoration, but this will achieve little if the factors that originally killed off the reef remain or intensify in the environment.”

Farm Field Days 2015

The kids and parents arrive for Farm Field Days

Yesterday and today I will spend my time at Farm Field Days. Our 26th annual Farm Field Days was held yesterday October 21 and today October 22 at the Prince William Fairgrounds. By the time we finish today about 1,600 fourth graders, their teachers and chaperons will have enjoyed our interactive learning program bringing the farm to the students. The Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District runs this annual field trip at no cost to the schools using volunteers and donations. This year we had 14 schools from Prince William County and the City of Manassas participating. To pull off this annual two-day event requires many more people than the 5 person staff at the Conservation District, it required the help of more than 100 volunteers including some 50 Ecology Club students from Stonewall Jackson High School. (Thank you, you were great!)

Students spend the day rotating through seven barns, with each barn highlighting an aspect of life on the farm using hands-on lessons. The animal barns never fails to amaze the kids by not only showcasing the full range of farmyard critters from bees to chickens and cows, but feature interactive demonstrations of how common products are made.

Demonstrations included wool spinning, butter churning, agricultural and industrial Regions of Virginia, trees and photosynthesis, and soil erosion through a science experiment, to name a few. Horsepower to High Tech tests the physical strength of a class of students to pull a tractor using math formulas to calculate horsepower. These demonstrations are geared to meet Virginia SOL (standards of learning) measures. Farm Field Days is a fun and engaging hands-on approach to teaching students about the agricultural world around them, and opening their eyes to the importance of protecting our natural resources.

For the past for five out of the past seven years I have be in the Regions of Virginia Barn teaching students about the land, the rivers and the geology of the Commonwealth and how that shaped our communities and our lives. Water availability and quality are critical issues facing all communities. An essential path to conserving our soil and water resources is by education our children on the value of these resources and making the connections to the natural world and our agricultural heritage. It is important for all our citizens see the connections and to understand the importance of keeping fertilizer and soil on the land, not in our streams, and how rain carries litter, dirt and other contaminants into our streams.

The entire Chesapeake Bay watershed is under a federal mandate to reduce sediment and fertilizer runoff into the bay in order to improve water quality. Experience has shown that the most effective way to protect water quality from runoff is through the District’s approach of cooperative and locally run programs. To succeed it is necessary for all to practice conservation. Good land management, promoted by the District’s programs, is essential to the sustainability of both our groundwater and our local farming community.

Heading back towards the buses