The dramatic boom in shale gas and shale oil production is increasing flaring of waste gas at drilling operations, a practice that emits large amounts of carbon dioxide pollution. According to a World Bank official, gas flaring bumped up by 4.1% in 2011 — roughly totaling the gas demand from Denmark.

The increase in carbon-intensive flaring comes after a period of decline globally since 2006. The World Bank estimates that world-wide flaring spews yearly emissions equal to the carbon output of France. Reuters broke the news about the upward trend:

The increase is mostly due to the rise in shale oil exploration in North Dakota, propelling the United States into the top 10 gas flaring countries along with Russia, Nigeria and Iraq.

The preliminary data – which will be released in detail later in May – shows that global gas flaring crept up to around 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2011, up from 134 bcm the previous year.

If this waste were to take place within the European Union’s carbon emissions trading scheme, the flaring would cost some 2.5 billion euros ($3.30 billion) at current market value of 7 euros per metric ton of CO2.

And, of course, the actual damage to health and well-being from CO2 is well over 10 times that. The only reason CO2 prices are so low are that Europe is in recession and there is a global deal to reduce emissions to levels that would not destroy the wood will climate.

The amount of gas being flared in North Dakota alone is stunning. According to a recent New York Times piece, shale oil producers in the state burn 100 million cubic feet of natural gas daily — “enough energy to heat half a million homes for a day.”

This is adding to an already significant problem. According to estimates from GE, gas flaring makes up about 2% of total global carbon emissions.

Last spring, GE issued a report saying that halting gas flaring “has the potential to be one of the great energy and environmental success stories, and it has the potential to be achieved within the next five years.” The company recommends better financial incentives and global agreements to give oil companies a reason to capture the gas and it more efficiently.

In early April, a group of investors worth $500 billion in assets sent a letter to the largest shale oil producers, saying they “are concerned that excessive flaring, because of its impact on air quality and climate change, poses significant risks for the companies involved, and for the industry at large, ultimately threatening the industry’s license to operate.”

Want to know where the country’s dirtiest hotel room is? No, it’s not that $20-per-night drive-in motel on the side of the highway. Chances are that it’s a penthouse suite in a J.W. Marriott hotel in Chicago.

And if you’re looking for the cleanest hotel in the country, you might consider going to a Vagabond Inn located somewhere in California.

That’s according to a new report from the research firm Brighter Planet, which just released a comprehensive ranking of the energy and carbon intensity of hotel chains across the country. Here’s a look at the geographic spread of where the “cleanest” and “dirtiest” hotels are located:

There are 51,000 hotels, motels and inns scattered around the U.S. with roughly five million guests rooms. According to Brighter Planet, the lodging industry represents 4 percent of all commercial building energy consumption in the country, generating 34.5 million metric tons of CO2 each year.

As appliances and building materials get more efficient, you’d think that the industry would be getting more efficient. But this analysis shows that modern hotels use far more energy per room than their “vintage counterparts.” This trend is particularly stark in upscale hotel chains, which use 25 percent more energy per night than the average budget hotel.

The dirtiest 25 percent of hotels — a large share of which are upscale chains — represent more than half of the energy use and carbon emissions from the entire lodging industry. The cleanest 25 percent only make up 7 percent of energy consumption and carbon emissions.

However, it’s wrong to conclude that high-class hotels are always going to be “dirtier” than budget lodging:

It’s probably no surprise that efficiency varies by price, with upscale hotels on average using 25% more energy per room-night than budget hotels. This is to be expected based on hotel characteristics: the average upscale hotel has twice as many rooms and was built a decade more recently than the average budget hotel, with midrange hotels falling in between.

But it’s important to note that there’s so much variability within each service class that the different service classes overlap significantly. Nationwide the cleanest upscale hotels are cleaner than most budget hotels, and the dirtiest budget hotels are as dirty as all but the dirtiest quarter of upscale hotels.

This study is particularly relevant for companies attempting to track their carbon footprints. It’s not just air or car travel that matters. Depending on the length of stay and the type of room purchased, lodging can rival the carbon intensity of office space.

Photo: Josh Lopez

by Daniel J. Weiss

On April 13, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first carbon dioxide pollution limits for new coal fired power plants. This action launched a sixty day public comment period for the public to let EPA know that it supported the proposal.

Just ten days later, on April 24^th, a broad coalition of clean air, labor and other progressive organizations delivered over 700,000 comments in favor of the proposal to EPA.

The groups delivered the comments to EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe:

“Setting strong limits on carbon pollution is not only critical to public health and the environment, but will also diminish the impacts of climate change and has broad public support as evidenced by numerous polls and the massive total of more than 735,000 comments submitted thus far in support of strong limits on carbon pollution.”

The comments expressed support for limits on carbon dioxide pollution from new and existing power plants.

These organizations, including the Center for American Progress Action Fund, plan to deliver “an even larger number of public comments before the close of the 60-day public comment period, June 12, 2012.”

Big electricity and coal companies are spending millions of dollars against these public health safeguards. It is critical that EPA continue to hear from Americans that they support reducing carbon pollution from power plants.

Please submit a public comment to the EPA in support of strong carbon pollution rules, urging further action to clean up our air and thanking them for their proposed safeguards. Take action here for clean air.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Northeastern states participating in America’s first carbon cap and trade program have outperformed the rest of the country in GDP growth and reduction in global warming pollution.

That’s according to a new report from Environment New Jersey, which examined emissions data and economic growth indicators from 2000 to 2009.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a nine-state cap-and-trade market designed to reduce emissions in the utility sector 10% by 2018. A recent independent analysis showed that the program has already created $1.6 billion in economic value and set the stage for $1.1 billion in ratepayer savings through investments in efficiency and renewable energy.

This latest report shows that states under the RGGI program saw a 20% greater reduction in per-capita carbon emissions than non-RGGI states — all while growing per-capita GDP at double the rate of the rest of the country.

It is, however, very difficult to pinpoint the exact impact that RGGI had on these emissions reductions. While the program has been in the works since the early 2000′s, it was only implemented in 2008. The combination of increased penetrations of natural gas and the economic downturn likely had the biggest roles to play in the emissions dip.

But some officials in the region believe that RGGI did play a part. InsideClimate News reported on reactions to the news:

“It’s very clear that emissions have decreased in the Northeast. I think it’s largely because of low natural gas prices, plus the effects of RGGI on top of that,” said Bob Teetz, vice president of environmental services at National Grid USA, a Waltham, Mass.-based electric and gas company. The utility operates 4,000 megawatts of natural gas power plants in Long Island, N.Y.

“All of these efforts are bearing fruit,” Ken Kimmell, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, told InsideClimate News. “We very much expect that that progress will continue,” as the economy gains strength, he said.

While we can’t say exactly what role RGGI played in these drops, we can make many other observations with certainty: The program has helped stimulate more efficiency and renewable energy, it has helped local businesses grow, it has added enormous economic value to the region, and it has not driven up electric rates.

Let’s compare real-world experience to the outlandish claims made by opponents of the program.

The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity actually claimed that RGGI would drive rates up in New Jersey by 90%. And New Jersey Governor Chris Christie pulled his state out of the program, calling it a “gimmicky tax.” According to program administrators, proceeds from carbon credit auctions brought $29 million to New Jersey in 2010, leveraging $3 to $4 in benefits for every dollar invested.

Opponents who claim cap and trade is bad for the economy simply don’t have a leg to stand on.

by Tom Kenworthy

The Environmental Protection Agency today took an important step toward reducing the harmful health effects of air pollution from oil and gas drilling operations.

The agency issued new rules that will require companies to capture emissions of toxic chemicals, compounds that contribute to smog, and methane, a potent global warming gas.

In a significant concession to the oil and gas industry, which has lobbied furiously to water down the requirements, the agency extended the time for full implementation to nearly three years, setting a limit of January 2015. By that final 2015 deadline, companies must have equipment in place to capture emissions through so-called “green completions.” Prior to the deadline companies will be able to flare or burn escaping gas and chemicals.

Gina McCarthy, assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation, said the change in the compliance deadline came when EPA determined it would take time for industry to get the technology in place for capturing emissions and to train personnel.

“We took a look at the data. There does need to be time for equipment to be manufactured, for training to be conducted…. This is a reasonable step…. It wasn’t politically motivated.”

EPA rejected industry appeals to limit the rules only to wells emitting high levels of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs.

The proposed rules include the first federal standards for hydraulic fracturing operations. The rules will cover the estimated 13,000 U.S. wells that are hydraulically fractured or re-fractured each year, and apply to various parts of the oil and gas development process, from well completion to processing.

Read more

In one of the most significant reversals of Bush-era policy, the Obama administration plans tomorrow to issue greenhouse pollution limits for new power plants, a major step in the fight against global warming. The new rule — which will go into effect in 2013 — confirms the end of the era of dirty coal-fired power plants:

The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits between 800 and 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Since the late 1990s, “natural gas has been the fuel of choice for the majority of new generating units,” and in the 2000s, wind power generation also grew significantly. With the high cost of its toxic pollution from mine to plant, coal has been losing out to cleaner sources of fuel in the electric utility sector. Although few new coal plants have been built in the last twenty years, aging plants — some built in the 1930s — still produce about 40 percent of U.S. electricity, and about 80 percent of carbon pollution from the power sector.

In March 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush reversed a campaign pledge to limit greenhouse pollution from power plants, the source of 40 percent of United States global warming pollution. In 2008, Bush White House officials refused to open an email sent by its own Environmental Protection Agency which called for action against man-made climate change.

“This is the third major executive action launched by the Obama administration to reduce carbon pollution,” writes Center for American Progress senior fellow Daniel Weiss. “With growing evidence that the serious impacts of climate change are already here, President Obama deserves credit for this new standard. We must urgently adopt and implement these new pollution reduction standards for power plants.”

Speaking at the Center for American Progress Action Fund today, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) said he believes a price on carbon pollution can provide a unique solution to both the country’s fiscal challenges and its looming climate crisis, uniting climate and deficit hawks. His presentation put the challenge to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the House Republican budget chief, who has claimed that Congress has a “moral obligation” to reduce the country’s debt. With former Republican congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Waxman explained how tackling climate pollution can address fiscal, energy, environmental, and economic challenges simultaneously:

A price on carbon can give you a substantial amount of money to help deal with our fiscal problems. A price on carbon can move us away from our reliance on fossil fuels which add to the greenhouse gas emissions in our climate, and by doing that we can become less dependent on oil. We would be able to be a challenger in the economic future of clean energy.

Watch it:

“Do people want to cut Medicare and Medicaid?” Waxman asked. A rising price on carbon pollution, Waxman said, could raise over $1 trillion over several decades.

Gilchrest rebuked Ryan for ignoring the climate crisis in his depiction of the “defining moment“:

Paul Ryan said this is a defining moment for future generations as far as a fiscal sense for reducing the deficit. This is a defining moment on the planet of seven billion people extracting resources faster than they can be replaced, becoming a geologic force by pumping more carbon dioxide in decades than nature is able to store in the earth over millions of years. The defining moment is realizing that the market, capitalism, our civilization is actually a subset of the earth’s ecosystem. We’re not independent of the living machine that gives us life on earth. We’re dependent on it.

“The U.S. is facing a range of unprecedented fiscal and environmental challenges,” said Waxman. “We’ve got a confluence of events happening all at once.”

Waxman and Gilchrest recently co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Sherry Boehlert (R-MD) calling for climate-change policies to be considered for deficit reduction.

by Erica Flock

In July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead in the water. Polling revealed that support for the legislation was low and that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had done a poor job explaining the bill. Down in the trenches, mud was flying: a politician compared a progressive activist organization supporting the carbon price, GetUp!, to the Hitler Youth League (GetUp!, by the way, is also the organization that produced this moving and wildly viral video in support of marriage equality last fall).

Despite ferocious opposition, the carbon price squeaked through the Australian parliament months later, sending a jolt of optimism through the global community. Like other climate bills, it ended up being pockmarked with holes gaping enough to drive an SUV through, but one of the largest per-capita carbon emitters in the world was clearly willing to throw its hat in the ring on climate action. The skeptics had been proven wrong.

Here in the U.S., activists perked up at news of Australia’s carbon price but overall seem hardened to federal policy after the American Clean Energy and Security Act failed to pass in 2010 (many environmentalists were opposed to the hulking and imperfect bill anyway, adding another layer of ambivalence). And don’t even mention the attitude in Congress. “We’re busy enough fighting off attacks on the EPA” is the mantra Democratic Congressmembers and environmentalists alike are fond of repeating these days.

But like crocus bulbs shifting under the frozen ground, a movement has been building for federal climate policy. And the time is right: belief in climate change among the general public has just taken an upward turn, according to Brookings.

Partly due to the pressure applied by groups like Citizens Climate Lobby, politicians and other leaders are beginning to warm up the public on carbon pricing.

Read more

Anti-science Republican candidate Rick Santorum said at a campaign event, “The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant.” But back in reality, carbon pollution poses very real dangers to the climate and public health, including inducing more asthma cases than ever. Last week, the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council also rolled out a seven-figure ad showing who suffers from the work of polluters and their lobbysts — asthmatic children:

“The icon of climate change, is more than the image of a polar bear on a melting ice floe trying to survive,” National Resources Defense Council senior scientist Kim Knowlton said. “It’s really the face of a child with asthma, using an inhaler to breathe.”

The EPA is about to release a nationwide carbon pollution rule limiting emissions from power plants, standards that ultimately protect children. The American Lung Association will have billboards in two states, on display in Columbus, OH and Pittsburgh, PA. View it: