TAR SANDS IN THE US....

Anyone who has followed the Keystone XL environmental disaster knows the environmental damage caused by mining and refining tar sands.  One gallon of oil is used to make every three.  The land is decimated as bad as a large strip mine.  The tarbit is transported under extreme pressure and is not taxed due to a loophole in the law. 

Now it is being proposed to occur in the US, as well as Canada. salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50874/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=7989  The fossil fuel industry is not interested in retrofitting to clean energy.  They are not interested in the 90 percent of scientists who agree climate change is occurring or the 82 percent who believe human activity is a contributing factor.  (This is based on a 2009 survey of more than 3,000 scientists by the University of Illinois researcher Peter Doran.) 

We cannot all attend everything, but consider getting involved.  It is time we act in our own best interests.  Even if you are among one of the persons on the fence about climate change (and some people may legitimately be), it is still clear that we are rapidly reaching the point where technology is costing more in terms of environmental damage and quality of life that the fossil fuel energy we are gleaning.  We need to move toward a sustainable and renewable energy grid. 

My personal "Do Not Drive" Day.....

Today, I did something out of the ordinary for me.  I did not drive.  In fact, I did not get in a car.  By the way, my son almost made it, too.  But he is nine and was extremely tired and did accept a ride of two miles home from the playground with a neighbor.  I can't say I blame him.  In some ways, filling the car was a responsible thing to do. 

Such a day is not unique.  Although for the life of me, I can't think of a day when I haven't at least been in a car.  Nonetheless, I am sure there have been other days like this, but it is not the norm. 

So, what did we do?  What did we learn?  Well, we relaxed in the morning.  We read, watched TV, ate, watched the animals outside, generally had a good low key time.  Then, early in the afternoon, we decided to take a bike ride with no general place in mind.  We stopped at a neighbor's house and played with their kids for awhile, then rode with some other neighbors to a local park where there was a festival. 

The festival was wonderful!  We saw snapping turtles (they are BIG), tadpoles (they are small) and frogs and snakes and other stuff.  We talked to a woman who walked the Appalachian Trail from Georgia through Tennessee, Kentucky, North Caroline and Virginia.  She and her husband took off three months to do this together.  I asked her what kind of job she had that she could do that and she explained that they both were employed and had to save up vacation and negotiate the time with their employers but - and here is the important part - if there is something you really want to do, you will find a way to do it. 

Wow.  There's a lesson. 

We biked to a local pizza place where we met up with the neighbors and had dinner.  We learned that all that riding can make you tired, hungry and thirsty.  Ok, so fuel is fuel.  But in general I think food is better fuel than oil. 

However, lesson learned.  You simply cannot live without fuel of some sort. 

We then went across the street to my son's school where we had a wonderful time playing at his playground.  I learned that bikesketball (a sort of basketball played on bikes) is both exhilarating and a little dangerous.  I also realized there really was nothing else at that moment that I would rather have been doing.  To say it was nice is an understatement.  Simply playing outside on a beautiful day was almost the only thing one really could do of true value.  As someone who is rarely "content", this was superbe. 

I also learned the limitations.  I could not get ice cream home on my bike.  It simply would melt.  I could not ride to get a large shopping order at all.  It would be simple enough to get one or two things, but a week's worth of groceries would not be easy.  That fuel thing again, but in a different way. 

I could not have added a quick trip to the library.  It is too far away.  I could not haul topsoil in to fill up the tracks in my yard from the tractor that removed the tree this winter.  Of course, if I had driven to do any of those things far from home, I would have missed the opportunities close at hand in the local park and the local playground. 

So I guess there is still room for some other kinds of fuel in my life.  It would be nice to say I learned I could do without a car, without driving, etc.  But that is not yet true.  But learning the simple happiness of being without one for awhile can be freeing. 

Patriot News Article April 23, 2013 "The Force of Green"...

The article on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 regarding the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry view of green energy (The Force of Green http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/04/for_business_climate_change_ho.html ) was informing. We now know that the Chamber's view of Green Energy is that it should compete in the marketplace with fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. Of course, the relative regulatory and tax structure favoring fossil fuels is ignored.  The Chamber decries the slowness of coal fired power plant permits, but the article ignores the reasons. The Chamber states that electricity rates have lowered due to shale gas, when the PUC's website indicates rates will rise in August. The Chamber indicates there is a rising petrochemical industry in Pennsylvania. Far from building infrastructure and jobs in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania is a net gas exporter. The Chamber's representative inaccurately stated there is a "lack of concensus" in the scientific community that humans are responsible for global warming. The article should have challenged these statements with balanced viewpoints. The Citizen's Climate Lobby and the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters both have local representatives and can be easily searched online.

Articles such as this do a disservice to readers.  Without opposing viewpoints and fact based reporting, citizen consumers cannot make informed decisions about what to believe and what choices to make.They cannot understand the depth of the fossil fuel miasma we are in, nor can they appreciate the results of their choices to pay for clean energy, buy higher mileage vehicles or energy efficient appliances.  We get what we pay for, and if we hear only one side about how Pennsylvania's future lies with fossil fuels, we will continue to pay for last century's limited fuel source. 

Landowner rights in the Commonwealth in jeopardy from gas company...

Gas companies are running rampant all over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  For the most part, these are companies in search of profits, and while one can blame them or not, that is the free market system.  However, the gas companies have become reckless.  They have begun to claim that they are above the law of contracts.  Their mantra has been that if they "own" the oil and gas, they have a "right" to access that oil and gas in any manner THEY deem reasonable.

This belief is based on an interpretation of the case of Belden and Blake v. Commonwealth, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 600 Pa. 559, 969 A.2d 528 (Pa. 2009).  Belden and Blake was about a Commonwealth agency trying to exert powers over and above those of a private landowner under the guise of Pennsylvania's Environmental Amendment. The court found in favor of the gas company, but cited Chartiers Block Coal Company, 152 Pa. 286, 25 A.597 (Pa. 1893) for the proposition that an oil and gas owner has a right to access their reserves.

The problem is, Chartiers Block did not involve a surface owner, or even a question of split estates.  Chartiers Block was a lawsuit by an owner of a coal estate to stop an owner of oil and gas estate from drilling through the coal to reach the oil and gas.  A lower court Chancellor, noting the difficulties of the decision, decided to allow the oil and gas estate to be accessed, noting that any damage could be paid for later.  The Court was troubled by its holding, stating:

This is a new question, and one that is full of difficulty.  The discovery of new sources of wealth, and the springing up of new industries which were never dreamed of half a century ago, sometimes present questions to which it is difficult to apply the law, as it has heretofore existed.  It is the crowning merit of the common law, however, that it is not composed of ironclad rules, but may be modified to a reasonable extent to meet new questions as they arise.  This may be called the ‘expansive property of the common law.’  Mining rights are peculiar, and exist from necessity, and the necessity must be recognized, and the rights of mine and land owners adjusted and protected accordingly.

Id., at 294, 295.

The Supreme Court, on appeal, noted these problems, adopted the findings of the Chancellor and refused to disturb the decision on appeal.  This is not a resounding decision that oil and gas estate owners have a "right" to access oil and gas, as referenced in the dicta of Belden and Blake.

In fact, these cases really have nothing to do with the intent of the parties, or the protection of a ladowner's right to contract.  Chartiers Block turned on the balancing of competing rights in portions of the subsurface estate and Belden and Blake turned on the fact the Commonwealth as a landowner enjoyed no more rights than a private landowner.  But in neither case did the courts address a situation where a landowner specifically limited the estate granted to an oil and gas company.    

Despite these facts, the oil and gas industry has decided to push this alleged "right" to the hilt.  Knowing that most landowners cannot afford to fight back, the oil and gas industry has drilled first and dared landowners to sue.  One very well known company has even challenged the Commonwealth to file suit to stop it from drilling.  When the Commonwealth indicated it did not agree with the position of the company, the company decided it would drill from off the property in dispute.  They went so far as to permit a well two properties away (so they would not have to give notice under DEP regulations).  When the Commonwealth sued, the company had the temerity to argue that a restriction on methods of production stating that only methods ordinarily in use in 1928 could be used actually was to protect the "surface owner" from the methods in use in 1850.  Of course, gas was not discovered until Drake's well in 1859.

The Supreme Court in Chartiers Block cried out for a legislative solution.  Perhaps it is now time for the people of the Commonwealth to demand their rights to contract and protect themselves from the gas companies.  Gas companies should not be given super powers (any more than the Commonwealth) to walk all over landowners and dare landowners to sue to stop the gas company.  Gas companies are not above the law.  If gas companies improperly act and are challenged, they should be penalized.  Attorney's fees should be allowed to give incentive to attorneys to represent landowners who often are land rich and cash poor.  Common law nuisance should be utilized when "tremors" shake the ground. 

The gas companies have money to take care of themselves.  Exxon Mobile was the number one company in 2012.  Google the amount of campaign contributions these companies make.  The number is so high that EQT shareholders are actually questioning if it is prudent.

If you are a landowner in the Commonwealth, you are at risk. Associate with other landowners, become vigilant discuss these issues with your legislators.  There is too much to lose if we abdicate our private property rights to gas companies.

Don't Pump Gas on April 15...

 

Yesterday I posted Don't Drive Day. Today I saw this. Let's all give it a try, eh? Exercise some collective buying power and who knows where we'll go...

Don't drive day ...

Don't drive day ....

I am reading a book about consumerism. One of the themes is about the tension between the "citizen consumer" and the "purchaser consumer". A citizen consumer is more or less defined as the consumer who uses his or her power to demand lower prices, better quality of goods or social change. A prime example are the African American boycotts in the 1920's and 1930's of businesses that refused to employ African American workers. Purchaser consumers are defined (again more or less) as those consumers treated as an economic block and an additional part of the economy like producers or labor. These are epitomized by the consumers of the Great Depression being exhorted to spend and not save. The result of such a purchaser consumer is government programs to stimulate the economy. Another result is the manipulation of that block by advertising and price.

The reason this is interesting to me is because of something in my personal life. My family is facing an economic problem. We purchased a very nice van a couple years ago. However, now that my spouse is working, the cost of gas is quite high. Morally, we do not believe in using too much of a resource. So we are thinking of getting a smaller hybrid vehicle. This has inevitably caused me to reflect on the way the fossil fuel industry holds us in its grip. I made the comment that the only way to change things was by voting with your money. The free market only responds to profits(or lack thereof). It is amoral. If you want to cripple the fossil fuel industry, then refuse to accept its paradigm and its product. It will respond by making its product palatable or change product and business model altogether.

In short, be a citizen consumer.

This brings me to the point. Individually, americans seem to be driving less, purchasing smaller cars, aggregating errands. However, these individual actions are sporadic and measurable only at the largest of scale. They are insignificant at that scale. So what if we were all more purposeful? What if we all decided not to drive one day? One day. What effect would that have?Does anyone else see any benefit in trying this?