In a region better known for oil, the Middle Eastern nation is beginning to look for alternatives
Perched over the Strait of Hormuz and above the 17 million oil barrels that sail through it each day, the Sultanate of Oman is something of a regional outlier. Nestled among a cluster of hydrocarbon-producing heavyweights, Oman might appear unlikely as a burgeoning champion of renewable energy. Yet the Middle Eastern nation is embarking on a search for new sources to fuel the country’s future energy needs.
Photo by GlassPoint Solar
For decades, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — have financed ambitious programs for urban development and modernization via enormous oil and gas revenues. Collectively, these states possess roughly a third of proven global oil reserves. They are also six of the thirteen worst per capita CO2 emitters in the world, each producing more carbon dioxide per person than the United Kingdom, Russia, or China.
Oman cannot, however, rely on the same fossil fuel resources as its opulent neighbours. For starters, Oman’s oil stocks pale in comparison to the GCC giants: it would take 50 Oman’s to eclipse Saudi Arabia’s cache of existing crude stocks. Oil reserves in Oman are generally more difficult to access, more expensive to exploit, and are also likely to run dry within 40 years (while emirates like Abu Dhabi are expected to be able to produce for another century).
Oman’s gas policy is also unsustainable. Gas accounts for 97.5 percent of the country’s fuel used for power generation. Despite possessing vast quantities of natural gas, domestic needs regularly outstrip production. As a result, the government is forced to import billions of cubic meters of gas from Qatar each year to cover a national deficit.
Additionally, the country’s growing population, which is both youthful and well educated, is driving demand for new housing developments and increased living standards. This is placing greater strain on the national power grid and leading to widespread blackouts. Indeed, in 2014, the power system in Oman’s second largest city of Salalah — serving roughly 350,000 people — experienced a total system blackout for almost five hours. Similar blackouts occur more regularly in regional areas reliant on diesel generators, which account for the remaining 2.5 percent of fuel used for electricity production. To meet expected demand, the system that …more
Logging reduces potential forest sink by over a third, hampering critical action to curb global warming, says new report
Of the many sources of carbon emissions the United States must reduce in order to thwart climate change, the most surprising may be its forests. According to a new report out today, logging in US forests reduces the potential forest carbon sink by over a third, preventing critical action on climate change.
If the US is serious about solving the climate crisis and providing communities a safety net against extreme weather events, it needs to scale-up its forest protection substantially, says the report, The Great American Stand: US Forests and the Climate Emergency, released by the conservation group Dogwood Alliance on the International Day of Forests.
Photo by Nicholas A. Tonelli
Understanding the scope of CO2 emissions from deforestation and forest degradation requires a long view.
The report estimates that 60 percent of the carbon emitted from logging between 1700-1935 has yet to be recovered from the atmosphere. This makes planting trees today to mitigate current emissions from fossil fuels problematic — trees planted today cannot be viewed as offsetting fossil fuel emissions when the US has yet to offset carbon emissions from past logging, the report says.
“We need to reduce emissions from logging in the US and massively scale up the amount of carbon stored in our forests in the next 20 to 30 years,” to reach negative emissions and curb the worst effects of climate change, says Danna Smith, executive director of the nonprofit Dogwood Alliance and co-author of the report.
The US is the largest producer and consumer of wood products in the world. From 2000 to 2012, forests in the Southeastern US experienced four times the rate of disturbance from logging as South American rainforests. And yet, the logging industry still boasts that US forests sequester 11 to 13 percent of US carbon emissions each year. “We hear this all the time… as if this is something to be proud of,” laments Smith. Considering that the global average for carbon sequestration by forests is 25 percent, it is apparent that the US has a lot of catching up to do.
Currently, logging in the US is reducing the capacity of US forests to store carbon by …more
Proposal to remove Yellowstone bears from Endangered Species Act is premature
The Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to delist grizzlies from the protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The basic rationale for delisting is that the geographical distribution of bears has increased, particularly in areas south and east of Yellowstone Park, as well as population growth.
Photo by USFWS Mountain-Prairie
But there is a debate about whether this is enough to justify delisting, and more worrisome, is whether the bear’s continued population growth is really ensured.
At best, there may be 700 grizzlies in the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. While this may seem like a large number, consider that grizzlies are a tournament species. That is, a few large, dominant males, do the bulk of all breeding — hence reducing the overall genetic diversity in the population.
Many geneticists believe a viable population of 2500 to 5000 bears is necessary for the long-term survival of the species. This can only be accomplished if the Yellowstone bears’ numbers increase and are eventually connected to other bear populations further north as part of a larger metapopulation.
There has been increasing mortality of female grizzlies in recent years for reasons that may be related to climate change — to be discussed in a minute. But higher mortality of females is critical since they are the source of new bears in the population.
The major argument against delisting has to do with a significant decline in Yellowstone grizzly food sources.
Whitebark pine, which has nutritious seeds, and which bears, particularly female bears, relied upon, have declined significantly due to bark beetles. The increase in bark beetle mortality in whitebark pine is attributed to global warming. As temperatures continue to rise we can only imagine even greater mortality in whitebark pine populations and loss of a major food source for grizzlies.
A second loss has been cutthroat trout. Bears used to feed upon spawning trout in tributaries to Yellowstone Lake, much as coastal brown bear feed on salmon. Lake trout, which prey upon cutthroat, were introduced into Yellowstone Lake and caused a major decline in cutthroat trout populations to the point where few to no bears feed on spawning trout any longer.
A third loss is meat. In the past, elk numbers were higher, and many elk died in winter due to starvation. This provided bears, …more
We need to fashion communities such that individuals become neighbors and lovers instead of just acquaintances and ciphers
It can be fairly objected that every age has its crises and so far the ingenuity of the human brain or the capacity of human society has been able to solve, or appear to solve, most of them. No matter how problems have grown in the past they have not interfered with the sort of growth that has characterized Western civilization in the modern period. But that lesson from the past disguises one important fact of the present: our crises now proceed, like the very growth of our systems, exponentially.
Photo Wikimedia Commons
“During the past two centuries,” in the words of M. King Hubbert, the prescient geophysicist with the United States Geological Survey, “we have known nothing but exponential growth, and we have evolved what amounts to an exponential growth culture, a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of non-growth.”
Obviously the solutions to these crises, even when they are identified and tried, have done nothing to diminish the impact of exponential growth, and indeed the solutions turn out to be problems, or generate unforeseen problems, as often as not. That is why it is necessary to turn in a totally different direction with a totally different mindset and expectation—a way, as I will show you, to the human scale.
It is now obvious that the way we have been going, particularly for the last 25 years, has plunged us into multiple environmental and social crises, and going on in that direction invites, if it does not guarantee, civilization’s collapse within the next 25. That is no exaggeration: as Pope Francis said in his June 2015 encyclical, “Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain.”
So to save our planet and its civilizations we must move in an opposite direction, we must work toward the decentralization of institutions, the devolution of power, and the dismantling of all large-scale systems that have created or perpetuated the current crises. In their place, smaller, more controllable, more efficient, more sensitive, people-sized units, rooted in local environments and guided by local citizens. That is the human-scale alternative.…more
EPA budget slashed by 31 percent, funding for key climate change programs scuttled
Donald Trump’s first budget blueprint, released today, hits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal climate change programs and initiatives the hardest while rewarding extractive industries and polluters.
Photo by Joel Dinda
The $54 billion in cuts to federal programs in the president’s Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again slashes the EPA’s annual spending by more than 31 percent; cuts $250 million that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA) spends on grants and programs that support coastal and marine management, research, and education; and ceases payments to the United Nations' climate change programs such as the Green Climate Fund and Climate Investment Fund.
The EPA budget will slip from $8.2 billion to $5.6 billion — lower than it’s been in four decades. Proposed cuts include the scuttling of more than 50 EPA programs and the elimination of 3,200 staff positions (over 20 percent of the department).
The blueprint also envisions ending funding for President Obama's signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions; cutting $900 million from the Energy Department’s Office of Science, which has funded cutting-edge research on projects such as biofuels, nuclear power, and other advanced techniques for energy generation, storage, and use; and eliminating $102 million in funding for NASA’s earth science program (which would terminate four missions related to climate change).
According to Legal Planet, cut EPA programs include Energy Star, Targeted Airshed Grants, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, and infrastructure support for Native villages in Alaska that are rapidly losing land due to climate change. Funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay clean-up, and other "regional efforts" would also be axed. Most of the cuts come as no surprise to the environmental community given the new administration's pro-industry stance and the fact that Trump had spoken about gutting the EPA in the past.
The cuts also hit the 60-year-old State Department Food for Peace Program, which sends food to poor countries hit by war or natural disasters, and the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program, which funds popular programs like Meals on Wheels.
"I think it’s fundamentally a signal from this president that the US is going to back away from all of the international architecture that’s …more
We need to engage hunters and anglers in an open dialogue about the true cost of lead contamination
With frontier flair, Ryan Zinke showed up for his first day of work as interior secretary on horseback on March 2. The former Montana congressman hadn’t been out of the saddle long before he took aim at Obama’s ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackle in in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Photo by Joseph/Flickr
Surrounded by representatives from a host of sportsman’s organizations, including the National Rifle Association, Zinke overturned President Obama’s last minute effort to protect wildlife and human health. The repeal of the ban was one of two secretarial orders, which Zinke said would “expand access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing, and recreation opportunities nationwide.” Zinke expressed a concern about Obama-era restrictions that he believes threatens to make hunting and fishing out of reach to everyone but “the land-owning elite.”
The ban had been issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on January 19, one day before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, to protect birds and fish from lead poisoning.
Many conservationists are crying foul, calling the move a clear effort to pander to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other hunting groups. (The NRA had called the ban a “final assault on gun owners’ and sportsmen’s rights” as it would force them to buy more expensive steel and copper bullets.)
WildEarth Guardians’ Wild Places program director Greg Dyson expressed disappointment with Zinke’s order to lift the ban. In an email message, he wrote, “The existing order pertained only to lands managed by the USFWS, in other words, wildlife refuges. If we can’t put wildlife first in wildlife refuges, then that’s pretty sad.”
While the ban has been removed from some 500 million acres of federally administered lands where hunting is allowed, some states — including Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont — already restrict the use of lead bait and tackle. And California will institute the nation’s first statewide ban on lead ammunition and tackle in 2019.
However, there are some conservationists who question whether a ban would have been effective in the first place. The National Wildlife Federation — a conservation group that has worked for decades to reduce the use of lead ammunition and tackle …more
Corporate capture of academic research by fossil fuel interests is a threat to tackling climate change
On February 16, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center hosted a film screening of the "Rational Middle Energy Series." The university promoted the event as “Finding Energy’s Rational Middle” and described the film’s motivation as “a need and desire for a balanced discussion about today’s energy issues.”
Photo by Joe Hall
Who can argue with balance and rationality? And with Harvard’s stamp of approval, surely the information presented to students and the public would be credible and reliable. Right?
The event’s sponsor was Shell Oil Company. The producer of the film series was Shell. The film’s director is vice president of a family-owned oil and gas company, and has taken approximately $300,000 from Shell. The host, Harvard Kennedy School, has received at least $3.75 million from Shell. And the event’s panel included a Shell executive vice president.
The film The Great Transition says natural gas is “clean” (in terms of carbon emissions, it is not) and that low-carbon, renewable energy is a “very long time off” (which is a political judgment, not a fact). Amy Myers Jaffe, identified in the film as the executive director of Energy and Sustainability at the University of California, Davis, says, “We need to be realistic that we’re gonna use fossil fuels now, because in the end, we are.” We are not told that she is a member of the US National Petroleum Council.
The film also features Richard Newell, who is identified as a former administrator at the US Energy Information Administration. “You can get 50 percent reductions in your emissions relative to coal through natural gas,” he says, ignoring the methane leaks that undermine such claims. The film neglects to mention that the Energy Initiative Newell founded and directed at Duke University was given $4 million by an executive vice president of a natural gas company.
Michelle Michot Foss, who offers skepticism about battery production for renewables, is identified as the chief energy economist at the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas at Austin. What’s not said is that the Energy Institute she founded at UT Austin is funded by Chevron, ExxonMobil, and …more