WaterWired

What Hath The Gulf Oil Spill Wrought? Environmental Evangelicals?

I had today's post all figured out. I was going to do yet another post on the water-drought-climate change situation in the USA Southwest. How novel for me!

As fate would have it NPR sidetracked me and I cast the Southwest aside like soiled sand from a catbox.

No, it wasn't the piece on Humboldt County trying to get pot growers to become 'green.' Hey, it's Sunday!

I heard an interview with Dr. Russell D. Moore, a Southern Baptist minister (Highview Baptist Church) from the greater Louisville, KY, area, and dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The story was titled, An Evangelical Crusade to Go Green with God. The story began:

As the oil continues to spill in the Gulf of Mexico, what to do about off-shore drilling and the regulation of the oil industry is cause for debate in Congress and among coastal residents. Now add to this another dimension: religion.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has used notably strong language to call on the government — and its own congregation — to work to prevent such a crisis again.

In a resolution, the Convention called on the government "to act determinatively and with undeterred resolve to end this crisis ... to ensure full corporate accountability for damages, clean-up and restoration ... and to ensure that government and private industry are not again caught without planning for such possibilities."[emboldening mine]

The story reports that Moore was instrumental in getting this resolution passed.

This opening was enough to make me stand and notice. My Northeastern bias was likely rising to the surface. Southern Baptists doing what? Sounds like something from Greenpeace. But wait - was this really something new among Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians? After all, Rick Warren, the best-selling author and megachurch pastor, and some of his colleagues had already broached this subject several years ago.

And Catholics can stand up and be counted as well: on 31 December 2009 I reported on a pastoral letter from the Catholic bishops of the Columbia River basin in which they argued for environmental stewardship.

In otther words, religion and environmentalism - what's the big deal?

The 'big deal' for me was that this was not just a handful of religious leaders, but an entire group, the SBC, that has been well-known for its conservatism on a wide variety of issues.  Corporate accountability? Calling on the government to act determinatively?

But I suspect this resolution intitiated some debate:

None of this means the evangelical community has embraced being green, however. "There are divisions in evangelicalism about how we ought to engage this issue and what it ought to look like," Moore says.

"There are some evangelicals, of course, who hold to a much more libertarian understanding of the relationship between government and protecting natural resources, but I think for the most part, evangelicals are ready to have a conversation about protecting the Creation."

It's a conversation that Moore feels evangelicals need to have.

Moore, who blogs at Moore to the Point and Tweets at drmoore, doesn't strike me as some 'enviro-liberal' masquerading as a Southern Baptist; just read some of his blog posts.  But he recently spoke on the Gulf oil spill in a post entitled Ecological  Catastrophe and the Uneasy Evangelical Conscience. In it, he recounts visiting his hometown of Biloxi, MS:

As I pass that sign on Highway 90 telling me I’m leaving Biloxi, I can look out behind the water’s horizon and know there’s a Pale Horse there. A massive rupture in the ocean’s floor is gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, with plumes of petroleum great enough to threaten to destroy the sea-life there for my lifetime, if not forever. Everything is endangered, from the seafood and tourism industries to the crabs and seagulls on the beach to the churches where I first heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moore recalls how Roe v. Wade was called the 'Pearl Harbor' for many evangelical Christians:

After Pearl Harbor, the shortsightedness, and indeed utopianism, of isolationism was seen for what it was. After Roe, what seemed to be a “Catholic issue” now pierced through the consciences of evangelical Protestants who realized they’d not only been naive; they’d also missed a key aspect of Christian thought and mission.

He thinks that the Gulf oil spill may be a 'defining moment' or a similar 'Pearl Harbor' for many evangelical Christians vis-a-vis environmentalism and stewardship.

Moore concludes his post:

Pollution kills people. Pollution dislocates families. Pollution defiles the icon of God’s Trinitarian joy, the creation of his theater (Ps. 19; Rom. 1).

Will people believe us when we speak about the One who brings life and that abundantly, when they see that we don’t care about that which kills and destroys? Will they hear us when we quote John 3:16 to them when, in the face of the loss of their lives, we shrug our shoulders and say, “Who is my neighbor?”

I’m leaving Biloxi today, with tears in my eyes. But I’ll be back. I’ll be back whether the next time I see this place it’s a thriving seacoast community again or whether it’s an oil-drenched crime scene. But I pray I’ll never be the same.

I love that last line: "But I pray I'll nevber be the same."

I hope I can say the same.

"Simply trusting corporations to go about their business without polluting the water streams and without destroying ecosystems is really a naïve and utopian view of human nature. It's not a Christian view of human nature." --Dr. Russell Moore, from the NPR story

Cannes Calling? WaterWired's Film Debut: Guaraní Aquifer

Self-promotion alert!

If you recall my  18 April post (and if not, why not?) in which I spoke of my upcoming trip to southern Connecticut to film some 'talking head' video clips on South America's Guaraní aquifer (shown in blue on the map) under the guidance of  multimedia journalist Annabel Symington and videographer Vasilios Sfinarolakis. 

Why film in Connecticut? It's cheaper to reach than South America, plus we wanted to use the pristine expanse of Long Island Sound, the largest body of water between Connecticut and New York, as a backdrop.

All  joking aside, Annabel has released a few short videos, shot by Vasilios and Mark Tipple (who edited them) featuring yours truly. I was filmed on Saturday, 24 April 2010. The sun was brighter than I had anticipated; you should have seen the top of my head the following day.

Here are her Guaraní Project WWW site and Facebook page.

Here is some information on the  Guaraní Aquifer System (GAS) and my 1 April 2010 facetious article on the GAS. In case you're wondering, the GAS holds far more water than Long Island Sound, which holds about 18 trillion gallons or about 68 cubic kilometers,  - perhaps more than 500 times as much. 

The videos are below - a six-minute version and a two-minute version.

Oh, yes - have your people call my people.

"Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal." -- Henry Ford

Interview with Hydrologist Michael Campana from TheGuaraniProject on Vimeo.
 

Why should people care about the Guarani Aquifer? from TheGuaraniProject on Vimeo.

Presentations: 2014/2024 Review of the Columbia River Treaty

On 16 June 2010, the nascent Oregon Section of the American Water Resources Association (ORAWRA) held its third quarterly dinner meeting with the topic, 2014/2024 Review of the Columbia River Treaty.

John Hyde, P.E., Technical Lead, Columbia River Treaty Review, the Bonneville Power Administration; and John Shurts, General Counsel,Northwest Power and Conservation Council, gave presentations.

Some background on their presentations:

The USA and Canada are the parties to the Columbia River Treaty (CRT), ratified in 1964 for the coordinated operation of flood control and power generation. The USA implementing entity for the CRT consists of the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division. BC Hydro and the BC Provincial Government are the implementing entities for Canada.

The CRT has no expiration date, but either country may terminate most of the CRT's provisions after 60 years - 2024. Notice of termination is required by 2014 if either country wants to terminate at the earliest opportunity (2024). Both USA and Canadian entities have initiated a set of hydropower and flood control studies of CRT  implementation, benefits, costs, and how these might be affected by Treaty termination and/or climate change.

Download Hyde_CRT_16_June_2010

Download Shurts_CRT_16_June 2010

The USACE site has some CRT documents of interest.

Keep in mind that the treaty is solely between the two federal governments; the states do not have an Columbia River agreement, or compact, among themselves. I find this incomprehensible. People tell me that one isn't needed because: the river basin is managed well by BPA, USACE,USBR, BC Hydro and others; the states all get along and to negotiate a compact would just get them all squabbling; there is no water shortage; and a compact would require 'too many people' at the table; blah, blah.

The above might (??) be true in 2010, but what about 2020? 2030? 2050? Will the states get along then? Will there be enough water then? You need a compact for the bad times more than for the good times, and you need to negotiate when times are good, not when a gun is being held to your head.

"Boundaries don't protect rivers, people do." -- Aristotle

Douglas Brinkley: To Save the Gulf, Free the Mississippi

Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of the excellent chronicle of Hurricane Katrina, The Great Deluge,  wrote an Op-Ed for the Financial Times last week (you may need to complete a free registration to read it) titled, To Save the Gulf, Free the Mississippi.

Brinkley wants BP to deposit $20B in an escrow account, along with an additional $8B letter of credit. Besides paying claims, this fund would also finance a scheme to remove oil from Louisiana's wetlands. He advocates literally opening the floodgates and allowing the Mississippi River to flush the wetlands of oil.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

But BP’s escrow billions should not go merely to paying lost wage claims to the charter boat operators, fisherman, motel owners, and seaside restaurateurs whose livelihoods have suffered. The money will also be needed for the US Army Corps of Engineers to open up the floodgates at the mouth of the Mississippi River and flush the Louisiana wetlands with new sediment-rich waters. Nothing is more toxic to wetlands than oil. The BP spill is not a Hurricane Katrina, in which 1,836 people died. Nor is it on the scale of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which claimed 2,995 lives. But it is the worst environmental disaster in US history. It requires Mr Obama to take one major action: start the decade-long process of saving America’s wetlands

Back in 1932 the Army Corps mistakenly raised the Mississippi River levies and built concrete jetties for flood control. The net effect of these engineering boondoggles – built ostensibly to improve navigation and reduce the need for dredging – has been to destroy Louisiana’s incredible wetlands; already a landmass the size of Delaware has disappeared. The Corps flood control programme has deprived the wetlands of their annual replenishing sediment. Instead, hundreds of tonnes of sediment a year drift far out over the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico for naught. Now, as the oil pours in, the wetlands have no natural means of replenishment. They are becoming a toxic dump.

Interesting idea. I'd like to see it vetted by someone qualified to assess its efficacy and speculate upon its unintended consequences.

Thanks to Steven Solomon for sending this my way. He mentioned that Brinkley told him that he had contacted the Department of the Interior about his idea and that they are considering it.

"And the river she rises
Just like she used to do.
She's so full of surprises
She reminds me of you."
-- Heart of the Night by Poco (written by Paul Cotton)

Review: Will 'Gasland' Light a Fire?

If you saw Joshua Fox's documentary Gasland on HBO last Monday night (check to see if it is still being shown) you know that one of Fox's most compelling visuals is a flaming tap, such as the one shown here from the review in the New York Times.

Fox's film is a 105-minute indictment of the shale gas industry and its effects on health and well water supplies. Here is another review from the Huffington Post and an interview of Fox by Terry Gross. View a trailer of the film at the bottom of this post.

He is a landowner in northeastern Pennsylvania whose home and land sit atop the Marcellus Shale, an extensive rock formation that contains huge amounts of natural gas. The problem is that you have to drill into the formation and inject fluids to artificially fracture the rock  so the gas can be liberated. This process is called hydrofracking or fracking,  short for hydraulic fracturing.

These shale gas deposits are extensive, as the accompanying map shows.

After Fox is offered about $100,000 by a gas company seeking permission to drill on his property he decides to check things out. Thus starts an odyssey that takes him beyond his home to nearby areas and to Colorado, Wyoming and other Western states where the shale gas industry has been operating.

What he finds is an industry unfettered by adherence to the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act - the industry was exempted by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Is the hand of Dick Cheney apparent? This egregious exemption boggled my mind.

Fox also discovers ignitable taps, foul smells, exploding wells, and some very sick people and animals.  Not a pretty sight is the understatement of the year. Also encountered are some dedicated scientists and some government officials, some of whom who are intrepid and others, less so.

The industry side is not really presented but that is not from Fox's lack of effort. He does have some clips of phone messages and brief conversations as he tries to speak with corporate officials. There is a clip of industry moguls testifing before a House  committee that is considering a bill (FRAC - Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemicals bill) that would repeal the aforementioned exemptions. At the end of the film as the credits roll, he lists those who declined interviews. One name that caught my eye was the Ground Water Protection Council. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Fox's attempt(s) to get an interview with the GWPC so I am reluctant to pass judgment.  Note that there is a downloadable publication on the GWPC site, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer.

Some other items that came out during the film:

1) Up to 596 chemicals are used in the 'soup' that is injected into gas-bearing formations. Companies are not required to divulge these chemicals. Not good. Not good at all.

2) The huge amounts of water and chemicals required to frack a single well: millions of gallons and up to hundreds of tons.

3) Too many talking heads are anathema in a film like this, but Gasland could have benefited from a hydrogeologist or reservoir engineer explaining what can happen to shallow domestic wells when hydrofracking is practiced (there are graphics).

4) If hydrofracking is as innocuous as a few people said, why was it necessary to seek SDWA and CWA exemptions? No problems, right?

5) Bubbling streams - and not from water flowing over rapids and waterfalls. 

6) Condensate tanks emitting toxic vapors; these sources are exempt from the Clean Air Act.

7) Pits full of  'produced water'- the stuff that comes out of the well. 'Water' is probably a stretch.

8) In an interview with PA DEP Secretary John Hanger, Fox is put on the defensive somewhat when Hanger says (words to the effect) that people like Fox, on the other side of the camera, can walk away from this issue, whereas Hanger can't, and has to make and live with decisions.

My thoughts:

1) Fox does not interview well owners who have or had drilling on their property but no water or health problems. That's to be expected, but we are left with the perception that all are adversely affected. I also wondered if there were affected people who did not have gas wells on their property but had been victimized by operations on nearby lands.

 2) Greed on the part of the energy companies is mentioned, but let's not forget that those who sold/leased their land to the energy companies likely received compensation. That's one question Fox never asks, not even of John Fenton, a Wyoming farmer/rancher who bemoans what the industry has done to his ranch (there are 24 gas wells on his land). Did Fenton and his wife (it's her family's land) grant permission for these wells to be drilled? If so, did they receive compensation? Did they think of what the result might be if they let the gas industry drill? Wyoming has a long history with the energy industry. How they get their product and what they have to do should not be a mystery.

3) Item (2) notwithstanding, shoddy treatment (jeopardizing health, etc.) is not justified.

4) The Federal and state governments don't seem very willing or able to address this issue, likely because of the 2005 exemptions. The EPA is supposedly examining the issuem but an EPA friend of mine said that EPA is not enthused about getting involved in this issue.

5) Budget cuts won't make it easier to address Item 4. Fox notes that the PA Department of Environmental Protection will endure a 25% cut, necessitating the loss of 350 jobs.

6) We need to demand that these companies be subject to applicable air and water quality and relevant environmental acts, assess what the specific problems are, their extent, and what the industry needs to do to mitigate the problems. If this means modifying existing laws or enacting new ones, so be it.

Did I like the film? Yes. There are some 'holes' for sure.  But I view Fox like I do Michael Moore - society needs people like them to poke it in the eye every once in a while.

Gasland is a real poke in the eye. Let's hope those who are in n a position to do something take action. If they don't, we need to hold their feet to the fire - or worse, the tap.

For another perspective on shale gas as a geopolitical game-changer, read this WSJ Op-Ed by Amy Myers Jaffe.

Note added on 28 June 2010: Emily Green tracks the hydrofracking - shale gas nexus.

"In Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas, they think oil rigs are pretty." -- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
 

Trailer