Low Carbon Economy Practitioners’ Guide Review

Work done by Hokuma Karimova and Piotr Wielezynski

Low Carbon Economy has become an important trend on the international politic scene. The demand for improved policies is growing significantly. This is the only way to motivate the governments not to postpone some measures to the future, especially in financially hard times. Considering that political and economical incentives focus on short-term gains, new policies have to strengthen the desire to follow the low carbon economy path.

There are two very important factors that may change the current situation. The first one is the technological development. There are some sectors, such as aviation and agriculture, where the current emission will be hard to decrease due to political pressure. Therefore investment in R&D is needed to obtain better technology.

The second one is crucial and it is related to changing the behavior of consumers. It is important because with increasing population more efficiency will be the key to a further provision of people needs.

The main conclusion is that it is a matter of political will and needed policy implementation, rather than technological possibilities or financial affordability.

Comments Off on Low Carbon Economy Practitioners’ Guide Review / 24 Feb 2012 por Piotr Adam Lubiewa-Wielezynski
IMSD /

Low carbon economy

Group: Patricia, Marie, Francesco, Carlos

Main conclusions of the Article: A Practitioner´s  Guide to a Low Carbon Economy: Lessons from the UK. by Samuel Fankhauser. Policy paper 2012.

1. Decarbonisation is not just a revolution of production, is a balance of efforts among supply via technological research and improvements in demand via changing the minds and the behaviour.

2. Breaking the link between development and emissions.

3. There is the necessity to act intensively now, humanity can’t wait the fall in the cost of low-carbon technology.

4. The challenge of translating long term goals into short term measurable laws. We need a redesign of the modern economy.
5. To achieve low carbon economy it is important to create long term credible incentives and to face behavioural and market barriers.
6. Legislation has to be the basic guide policy to reduce the uncertainty for decision makers.
7. Decarbonisation of socio- and economic-movement does not need to be reactive to a legislative basis to start to be disseminated.
8. Electric power is a central issue to focus on, because it accounts for a large fraction of total GHG emissions.
9. Command & Control measure: no flexibility due to a fixed cap which may be quite unfair due to market diversity, finally is hard to check compliance.
10. Transition to a low carbon economy is feasible as long as the politicians are willing to include it as a need and target.

Comments Off on Low carbon economy / 24 Feb 2012 por Carlos Cerdan Infantes
IMSD /

Climate Change: Summary of CDM Project 4567

Project 4567: Methane Recovery from waste water treatment in seafood industry in Maharashtra, India.

The CDM project aims to recover methane from wastewater treatment in seafood industry at Maharashtra, India. The registered project is small-scale and hosted by the Government of India while the private entity and project participant is Gadre Marine Export Pvt Ltd (GMEPL), which claims to be the lead manufacturer of seafood known as SURIMI. The CDM report defines SURIMI as “a stabilized myofibrillar protein obtained from deboned fish flesh i.e. washed with water and blended with cryoprotectants”. GMEPL is located at Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), Ratnagiri, Maharashtra.

Districts of Maharashtra

The project involves installing an Effluent Treatment Plant for treatment of wastewater in order to generate biogas. The project activity will utilize renewable energy technologies to supply thermal energy generated from the biogas for the manufacturing plant, and thereby replace use of fossil fuel. The units include solar thermal water heaters and dryers, solar cookers, energy derived from renewable biomass and other technologies that provide thermal energy.

The project plans to contribute to sustainable development in the following ways:

1. Social – generate employment opportunities for both skilled and unskilled labour.
2. Economic – develop renewable sources of energy and create local employment opportunities while helping to conserve finite sources of energy i.e. fossil fuels.
3. Environment – reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), such as CO2 and CH4, and help improve air and water quality. The controlled environment where the wastewater will be treated will also reduce the strong malodours produced from degradable components of the waste involved in the process, thereby eliminating presence of flies and mosquitoes in the surrounding area.

The project will contribute to technology transfer as it plans to employ an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) technology for treatment of the wastewater. Wastewater treatment in seafood industry is mentioned in the CDM report to be among the first of its kind in India in terms of technology, geography, sector, type of investment and investor, market, etc. The capture of biogas & utilization of captured biogas as a fuel for thermal purposes is also a new concept in the seafood industry in India.

UASB Scheme

The positive impact of the project is the reduction of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. The characteristic of this new technology also leaves a positive effect on the air quality in the surrounding environment, and the methane gas is not wasted since it is utilized to produce energy. Negative impacts on the air would be due to the emissions of burning biogas for energy generation. However, it would emit less hazardously since biogas is considered to be a relatively “clean” fuel.

The baseline of the CDM project would be to continue using open anaerobic lagoons to treat the wastewater, as opposed to closed digesters that lead to capturing methane.

The project activity is a less known technology in seafood industry not only in the state of Maharashtra but also in India. To justify the additionality of the proposed project, the CDM report states that prevailing practices in India and existing regulatory or policy requirements would have led to implementation of a technology with higher GHG emissions.

The project was seen as a risk in the opinion of investors who would prefer to opt for an anaerobic deep lagoon as a wastewater treatment facility. To overcome this challenge face in the implementation of the project, the report states that the CDM revenue is expected to alleviate the significant barriers by providing the additional revenue for the plant, which would be gained by the sale of carbon credits.

The CDM report does not particularly mention anything with regard to the climate resilience of the project, but given that it is dealing directly with the seafood industry, it might be affected by the amount of  seafood being produced.  Nonetheless, the structure and technology itself can be assumed to remain minimally affected by future climate change.

Example of a UASB Tank

Comments Off on Climate Change: Summary of CDM Project 4567 / 24 Feb 2012 por Syafrina Sharif
IMSD /

Low carbon – The Economist

Comments Off on Low carbon – The Economist / 24 Feb 2012 por Tabithah Mkandawire Kaluwa
IMSD /

Climate Change:CDM project in Israel – Hiriya Landfill Project

• It helped to reduce the odour due to uncontrolled wastes.
• It helped to reduce soil snd water contamination which was being caused through leaching of the landfill watses.
• It helped in reducing GHG emission both from the methane from the landfill but also through the supply of zero carbon energy for the company and reduce the use fossil fuel.

• The project broght in a new technology and clean mechanism of supplying energy from a source which is a waste and was regarded as something with no value. The technology can be repricated in other landfills.

• The project helped to improve the health status of the community by levels of pollution and odours which were there before the project.
• The reduction in water contamination could also improve the health status of the community.

Comments Off on Climate Change:CDM project in Israel – Hiriya Landfill Project / 24 Feb 2012 por Tabithah Mkandawire Kaluwa
IMSD /

#3CC. Transmilenio CDM Case

The implementation of an organized and efficient public transport system was, and still is, an imperative for Bogota, considering its size (7 million inhabitants) and extension (urban area around 300 km2). With TransMilenio the City experienced a huge positive change, not only due to its public infrastructure, but mainly on the quality of life.

TransMilenio is an integrated public transport system based on a Bus Rapid Transit (BTR). It consists in several interconnected lines for large capacity buses, with fixed stops in exclusive elevated stations, that allow pre-boarding ticketing. Also, the System integrates “feeder buses”, small units that connect neighborhoods or other areas of the City with the main stations.

This project, developed under a public – private partnership, has being designed by phases (I-IV), that responds to different lanes around the City. The first and the second have been already implemented; the third one is in construction phase and will consist of 3 additional trunk routes.

The implementation of a more efficient and safe public transport system had benefits not only the urban mobility , but also on the environment thanks to the reduction of the pollution’ levels. For this reason, TransMilenio was tackle as a huge opportunity to reduce GHG emissions, and in 2006 became the first CDM project in its kind. The UNFCCC approved the methodology proposed by the CAF (Development Bank of Latin America) to measure the GHG emissions reductions for the transport sector, which could be use on other public transport system around the world.

The estimated total amount of emission reduction for the crediting period 2006 -2012, is 1.725.940 tones of CO2 (eq). This reductions are being caused by the renewal of the fleet, an increased capacity of buses and an improved operating condition for buses. The technology used by buses is considered Environmentally Sound Technology (EST), that permits a significantly lower level of emissions compared to the conventional buses. Moreover, changes in consumers preferences (from private to public) also play an essential role to achieve this goal.

In addition to the “environmental” benefits, TransMilenio have contributed to Bogota’s development. Besides the employment creation (more than 1.500 for unskilled workers), and the positive impacts on human’s health and wellbeing, Transmilenio helped to improve the intra-connection of the city, beneficing, mainly the poorer population. The system’s design privilege the poor areas located in the periphery of the city, improving the interconnection of the poor people among the city, at low cost. In addition, the System contributed to the recuperation of some deployed and unsafe areas, thanks to the creation of public space and people’s circulation.

In spite of all this positive aspects, over the last years TransMilenio had being facing one of the most terrible corruption scandals ever in Bogota. For that, the former major of the City ended in jail and the Phase III was stopped and delayed for almost 2 years. This had serious implications on the crediting period renewal and on the credibility for future CDM projects.

However, no one questions that Transmilenio is one of the most important projects of Bogota. Its urgency and relevance are not in doubt. But due to its public necessity, it is quite difficult to understand if in fact this kind of projects could apply as a CDM, meeting the additonality criteria demanded for all CDM projects.

The project design document argues as unviable the alternative to implement the project without CDM, due basically to three main barriers: (I) investment barrier (high investment for phase II, superior than phase I); (ii) political barrier (limited interest in investing of the new administration); and (iii) resistance of existing transport sector (buss owners thus fear to loos income, specially the informal transport). The impact of a CDM registration could solve all the obstacles that impede the project development. Financial transfers resulting from the sale of CERs, international commitments and employment opportunities are advantages of the registration that could drive and solve the problems.

Nevertheless, it seems complex to determine what is true additionallity and what isn’t. In this case, the implementation of TransMilenio transcendend the CDM option. It was under a public policy commitment. And it is important to take into account that Colombia is a medium – high income level country; its GDP percapita is around 9.800 USD PPP (WorldBank, 2010). So, the question behind relies on the necesity, accuracy and efficiency of allocating TransMilenio as a CDM project. Mechanismis to towards Climate Change should move forward to market options to asure better efficiency result. Also, it should consider the possibility to limit the countries that can apply for CDM resgitration to those that really need it (the less developed), in which colombia , as it is obvious, does not appear.

References:

CAF & Grutter Consulting: “BTR Bogota, Clombia: TransMilenio phase II – IV”. PPD CDM. Version 02, July 1, 2004.

Corporacion Andina de Fomento, CAF. Consulted on 20 february 2012. http://www.caf.com/view/project_popup.asp?id=20604&ms=12

Det Norske Veritas: Validation Report: BTR Bogota, Clombia: TransMilenio phase II – IV”. PPD CDM. Report No. 2006 – 1321.

Comments Off on #3CC. Transmilenio CDM Case / 23 Feb 2012 por Diana Patricia Sanchez Barajas
IMSD /

#Climate Change#: Reforestation CDM Project in Brazil

Although Brazil has got a lot of projects registered under the CDM scheme, only 2 of them are related to reforestation. The idea here is to analyze one of them, developed in the Tietê riverside, one important watercourse that crosses the city of São Paulo, within the state with the same name.

According to the Project Design Document, “The Tietê —São Paulo state’s largest river— runs 1,100 Km from its eastern source in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region to the western border of the state where it joins the Paraná river, which then runs southward, toward the Rio de la Plata estuary between Argentina and Uruguay. This river has had a tremendous influence on São Paulo City land pattern occupation and today’s industrial development set up within Metropolitan Area. Because it is located at the source of these gateways, the São Paulo Metropolitan Area has to import more than 50% of the water from other basins” (PDD, pg 10). In the last century, when São Paulo grew exponentially to be one the biggest cities in the world, the levels of pollution within the river increased a lot and the riverside was completely occupied in urban areas. The result was the damage in important ecosystems and consequently significant losses of biodiversity within the Atlantic Forest biome. The following picture shows the losses in vegetative coverage in the state.

Source: PDD (pg 51)

The project consists on the reforestation of up to 13.939 hectares of riparian areas currently occupied by unmanaged grassland along the banks of ten hydropower reservoirs in the State of São Paulo with native forest species. About 100 native different species are expected to be used, and the project will be carried out by AES Tietê, an electric sector’s company which owns the concession of 10 hydropower plants in the region with a total capacity of 2,6 GW.

The methodology applied to the project is “Afforestation and reforestation project activities implemented on unmanaged grassland in reserve/protected areas – AR-AM0010/version 04 (EB 50 on October 16 2009)”. In that sense, it’s important to highlight that the areas that will be recovered are protected areas according to the Brazilian environmental legislation regarding riverside, but there is no responsibility for the company to promote de reforestation of the area. Without the activity, the baseline is that the grassland remains unmanaged.

To proves additionality, the methodology used was “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality for afforestation and reforestation CDM project activities” (version 02), approved by the CDM Executive Board (EB 35), to demonstrate additionality through investment, barrier and common practice analyses, as applicable. (PDD, pg. 22) Summarizing:

• Step 0: company provides evidence that the project started after 1999, which is clear since before that year company had no concession rights over the area. Furthermore, AES Tietê has to prove that CDM and its potential revenues were seriously taken into account in the decision for the investment. In this sense, since the inception of the project, company had several meetings with Brazilian Designated National Authority and drafted methodologies to be submitted to the CDM Executive Board.
• Step 1: the alternative scenario is considered to be the continuation of the previous situation, without any project being undertaken.
• Step 2: investment analysis was not conducted.
• Step 3: the barriers include lack of incentives for reforestation projects, prevailing practices in the sector, development and availability of high quality seeds and finally the existence of exotic grass species in the area that undermine the ability of the forest to be recovered.
• Step 4: common practice analysis shows that similar activities have not been implemented.

Once the additionality was proved, the main point becomes the estimation of GHG removals by sink. It remains as one of the most controversial aspects of afforestation and reforestation methodologies. “Estimation of ex ante actual net GHG removal by sinks was performed by the application of TARAM (Tool for Aforestation and Reforestation Approved Methodologies) made available by the World Bank BioCarbon Fund, by applying the stock-change method.” (PDD, pg. 31) So, the result of net sink is calculated deducting the amount estimated to be removed without the project from that one promoted by the project activity. No relevant leakages were identified. The monitoring process is very complex in this case, since there must be a detailed ex post laboratory analysis to prove that the expected removals really occurred.

To conclude, we see that this kind of project has no incentives from other origins to be undertaken. In this case, the CDM can really represent an incentive to the removal of GHG from the atmosphere, even though companies may do that also to improve their reputation, for publicity or for improving the relation with communities. The social and economic effects of this project are few, but from the environmental point of view reforesting the riverside can be positive for the biodiversity, for protecting the water stream from pollution, prevent floods, among other factors. The only point of concern is this case is the effective reduction of the mix of trees planted, what reinforces the demand for a clear and efficient monitoring plan.

Comments Off on #Climate Change#: Reforestation CDM Project in Brazil / 23 Feb 2012 por Fabio Pinto Almeida
IMSD /

#Low Carbon Economy: Comments on Carbon footprinting

Team: Ildikó Heim, Laura Rubio, Luca Palma, Rodrigo Capriles

Our comments on the article: Following the footprints

• International, independent organization to manage/organize the standards

The international understanding of standards must be supported and managed by an independent international organization, which is capable of bringing worldwide criteria in one global and understandable direction.

• Set global Standards, which can also serve as a base for future law (mandatory)

Once standards are agreed globally, further implementation can be easier for countries through their laws basing it recognized worldwide principles.

• Benchmarking with successful labels (fairtrade, organic): what do they do better?

For effective implementation, looking at other labels is useful to determine the reasons for their success. This info could help carbon labels to emerge in a satisfactory way.

• Are costumers interested to know this info (better to compare to market average), do they decide based on this?

In order to know how aware and interested people are about the carbon footprint, a market research should be carried out. An educational campaign should be designed based on these results and actions should be taken for people to take carbon footprint as a decision factor when choosing their products.

• A simple understandable label

Carbon footprint labels should be immediately recognized. By using colors and easy figures, people should be able to rapidly know if the product has high or low carbon emissions. When the consumer needs to think long, attention is gone and impact is lost.

• Consumer Awareness Campaign

Based on the market research results and having a simple label, consumers can and should be made aware of the advantages of this labeling process via ads, trainings, FAQs, dialogs, social media etc. This way, companies with good carbon footprint results could enjoy competitive advantages.

• Include use-phase emission? (LCA)

Should companies include the use-phase emission (emitted by customer) into the life-cycle-assessment(LCA) even if it is not reliable? Though in many cases consumer’s behavior decide on the bigger part of a product’s carbon footprint.

• Advice to consumer for reduced carbon emission while usage

It could be better to give advice to save energy and CO2 eq. emission in the utilization of the good instead of try to assess the average consumption.

• CFSCO (Carbon Footprint Service Company)? on the examples of ESCO to assess suppliers?

High cost of evaluation; the solution could come from companies, which work like ESCOs (Energy Service Company) and give the service to assess the value chain and reduce the carbon footprint, and therefore increase the efficiency, and with this reduction they could be repaid for their work.

• Receiving a label means also a commitment to reduce CO2 in the future

The matter of labelling the value chain is not just to put a label, but the company that has undertaken this process commits itself to reduce its CO2 emission and to improve its efficiency.

Comments Off on #Low Carbon Economy: Comments on Carbon footprinting / 22 Feb 2012 por Ildiko Heim
IMSD /

STOP FRACKING AROUND

What is hydraulic fracturing and is it environmentally sound?

1.) Immediate thoughts/uproar and contentions

The executive summary released by my country’s EPA begins with “Natural Gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future.” I would prefer a statement such as: it is imperative that our country adopt renewable clean energy to meet the growing demands of our population. To me, the summary begins biased. Natural Gas does not need to play a key role, it is an option for our future energy needs and certainly not the best one. “Hydraulic fracturing brings environmental benefits,” pure poppycock, hogwash, doubtful, mcdoubtful! Yet, the US Environmental Protection Agency is obviously speaking for the heavy players in the U.S. congress of the natural gas industry.
The bottom of the second paragraph, you can find the non challant statement: “Many concerns about hydraulic fracturing center on potential risk to drinking water resources,” (2011) Meanwhile, Josh Fox’s sensational documentary debuted in 2010. Fox went cross country to reveal the secrets, lies, contamination and compromised health of locals exposed to fracking. If the public speaks they are not heard. Corporations shadow the public’s wants, desires, concerns and grievances. The EPA is being thwarted by the interest of the large portfolios of congress members and the absurd amount of money spent on lobbying by natural gas companies. In the third quarter alone natural gas spent 630,000 US dollars lobbying according to bussinessweek . Natural gas interest have spent more that 747 million dollars in the last ten years lobbying congress( just to really make you disgusted, ibitime writes that public campaigns reports 30 major us corporations spent an average of 400,000 dollars a day lobbying in their interest in congress) This “lobbying” concept has gone way to far and has pushed any public opinion far to the side if not off the field by big fortune 500 honchos. The EPA did not give an environmental assessment on fracking. The EPA issued a description of the environment, the project and the positive impact. The environmental assessment must be skewed because it asserts that is safe if done properly. How could this be? However, the public roared up and now the EPA is going to do another study on the impact of fracking. Finally, the EPA is assessing the potential relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.
This youtube video is from the notorious fox news:

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

EIA- FRACKING
The outline of an EIA assessment should be as follows:
A. Introduction
B Description of the Project
C. Description of the Environment
D. Alternatives – the alternative all other renewable energies, complete avoidance.
E. Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
F. Economic Assessment – I do not want to even state because the economic gains are never worth destroying the environment. I believe that water is priceless so therefore the risk is too high with Natural Gas drilling.
G. Environmental Management Plan
H. Public Involvement and Disclosure- The public has caused considerable uproar. The public grievances has pushed the EPA to conduct extensive studies and reports on fracking. Several websites and activist are dedicating their lives to preventing fracking.
I. Conclusions

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

Introduction/ Description of Fracking

The purpose of this report is to report on hydraulic fracturing. (HF) Over nine million people living in New York rely on the clean, unfiltered drinking water from the Croton, Catskill, and Delaware watersheds. The extensive system, the largest in the world carries 1.2 billion gallons of water everyday from 19 upstate reservoirs. The drilling in NY has been delayed due to public uproar and their concerns for the impact on their drinking water. “The Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York, which represents more than 400 individuals and businesses in the industry, argues that the restrictions need to be eased so as not to limit development of gas wells and the economic benefits it says will result.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/nyregion/new-york-rules-on-hydrofracking-get-20000-comments.html?_r=2) It’s importance is subjective and really only brings profitable benefits to the natural gas industry. The proposed project is to drill on the Marcellus Shale in upstate New York. To drill one single well the estimated cost is 7.6 million US dollars.
How does hydraulic fracturing work?
Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a means of natural gas extraction employed in deep natural gas well drilling. Once a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. (Generally 1-8 million gallons of water may be used to frack a well. A well may be fracked up to 18 times. And the chemicals are: For each frack, 80-300 tons of chemicals may be used. Presently, the natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but scientists have identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. )The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. Horizontal hydrofracking is a means of tapping shale deposits containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by conventional drilling. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the life of an existing well once its productivity starts to run out, sort of a last resort. Horizontal fracking differs in that it uses a mixture of 596 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of gallons of water per frack. This water then becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of. The average well is up to 8,000 feet deep. The depth of drinking water aquifers is about 1,000 feet. The problems typically stem from poor cement well casings that leak natural gas as well as fracking fluid into water wells.

How much does a well cost?
• Land acquisition and leasing: $2.1 million
• Permitting: $10,000
• Vertical drilling: $663,000
• Horizontal drilling: $1.2 million
• Hydraulic fracturing: $2.5 million
• Completion: $200,000
• Production to gathering: $472,000
What is the project lifecycle?
• Phase 1. Mineral leasing/ acquisition and permitting
• Phase 2. Sit Construction
• Phase 3. Drilling
• Phase 4. Hydraulic Fracturing
• Phase 5. Completion
• Phase 6. Production
• Phase 7. Workovers
• Phase 8. Plugging and abandonment/reclamation

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

How does hydrofracking impact the environment?
1.) Hydrofracking requires 1-2 million gallons for one single fracking. Water depletion is of great concern.
2.) More than 200 toxic chemicals are used in the hydrofracking fluid. Including known carcinogens (benzene, arsenic and polycyclic aromatics). Other substances are associated with endocrine disruption, damage to reproductive health, immune suppression, and genetic mutations.
3.) External toxic substances. When shale formations are disturbed other toxic and radioactive materials are released. Additionally, reports show that material returned to the surface of the wells due to improper wastewater treatment and deemed impossible for natural waterways to dilute. This could pose a continuing health threat to humans and to the ecosystem that depends upon drinking or exposed to the water.
4,) Water contamination has proven to be inevitable.
5.) Safety of contamination and waste disposable. About 60% of the hydrofracking fluid is usually recovered after drilling. It is stored on site in evaporation pits and may then be trucked offsite for use in another fracking operation or for treatment and disposal in surface waters or underground reservoirs. If the pits are improperly managed ground water contamination is a high risk.
6.) Forty percent or more of the fluid remains underground. Can these fluids migrate underground?
“Legislation requiring a tracking system for disposal of this sludge failed, although it is known that some wastewater is disposed of in wastewater treatment plants and some are sold to municipalities to clear ice and snow off roads (recycled wastewater has a very high salt content). US EPA research found that about 50 million gallons of wastewater was unaccounted for. “ (Epa.gov)
7.) Air pollution is an issue related to site operations, evaporation pits, and to the emissions of the hundreds of heavy duty diesel trucks coming and going carrying materials, water and waste.
8.) Deforestation. Large areas of land need to be cleared to begin operations.
9.) Energy Use. Drilling operations also involve lights 24 hours a day.
10.)Noise pollution– from the initial month of drilling the well to the continuous noise generated by operation of compressor stations.
11.) Effects on health. It is not clear the effects however; dozens of reports of water contamination, foul odor and health issues have been reported.
Ex/ “Chris Mobaldi, who lived in Rifle, Colorado, believes her neurological system was damaged by drinking water that may have been contaminated by drilling fluids from wells around her home. She had two tumors removed from her pituitary gland and endured excruciating pain.” (sourcewatch.org)
12.) Safety. Residents nearby operations have reported being able to hold up a lighter near their water faucets and huge billowing flames would erupt. You cannot see and smell the gas so residents have no warning of contamination.
What is being done now? Anticipated measures and mitigation.
In its fiscal year 2010 budget report, the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriation Conference Committee identified the need for a focused study of this topic:
“The conferees urge the Agency to carry out a study on the relationship
between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach
that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of
information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a
transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult with other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which should be prepared in accordance with the Agency’s quality assurance principles.”

Fracking has brought public outrage. The EPA intends to redue the fracking study. HF is the act of drilling deep into the earth to recover natural case.
Where are the bans and acts for regulation:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/85/Edelstein-bans-vs-population-bubble-fracking.jpg

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress to ensure clean drinking water free from both natural and man-made contaminates.

The FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act) is a House bill intended to repeal the Halliburton Loophole and to require the natural gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use.

What are the questions being asked?

How are HF operations sited in relation to other injection or extraction activities (e.g., other HF operations or other UIC wells)?
• Can HF sites are mapped to evaluate current and projected development,
geographical distribution, relationship to drinking water resources, and proximity to communities, tribal lands and communities that might face socio-economic hardships?
• Do site preparation and well construction activities have potential to impact water resources?
• What criteria should be considered in evaluating the proximity of drinking water resources (underground and surface) and water availability to siting HF activities?
• To what extent may other nearby well penetrations, especially abandoned wells, affect potential impacts from HF activities?
What tools are needed to define an appropriate area of review surrounding the HF well?
What tools and analytical methods are needed to characterize HF fluids, produced water, and site-runoff?
• What are the fate and transport properties of HF fluids?
• How can well construction and maintenance practices prevent contamination of water resources?
• What materials and design/construction practices are needed for wells to which HF treatments will be applied?
• What types of monitoring and testing can be used to ensure wells and fractures are placed in appropriate locations to protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) and geologic confining layers?
• What are the most effective methods for well failure mitigation, including methods for assessing well integrity, designing HF treatments, and monitoring during and after HF?
• What safeguards are needed to prevent mechanical integrity failures that could result in leaks of fluids and gases into USDWs that overlie the gas reservoir?
• What are the possible problems and impacts associated with available options for the management and disposal of produced water and do remedial technologies exist?
• What data and information are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) for the storage, treatment, and disposal of produced water? What are the constraints on recycling the produced water rather than disposal?
• What tools and analytical methods are needed to characterize emissions from HF and associated gas production operations?
• What data and information are needed to optimize BMPs for vapor emissions during HF operations?

The priorities are preventative actions and to avoid risk at all cost. There needs to be complete and on going reporting on the quantity and the content of waste generated, reports related to emissions and disposition. Compliance to the clean drinking water act and EPA regulators present on cite is a way to assure monitoring and auditing. Legislative action is a must, both federal and state level.
Fracking is not the solution. I believe it poses too many environmental threats and the risk largely out weighs the benefits. I hope that fracking is stopped. I am glad to see that the public stood up and demanded assessment and reevaluation from the EPA. I hope that both state and federal organizations do not work against each other nor put the burden of the problem on one institution but establish laws and regulations for the entire country to comply with.

Work Cited:

http://nofracking.com/#local

TEDX: The Endocrine Disruption Exchange. 2010. Accessed May 20, 2010. http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.introduction.php
The New York Times. The Halliburton Loophole. Published November 2009.
Thomas, Library of Congress. HR 2766. Accessed February 15,
2012.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2766:
GovTrack. Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. June 2009. Accessed February 15, 2012.
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. Safe Water Drinking Act. Accessed February 15,2012 .http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/
Environmental Protection Agency of New York City. Statement on Hydrofracking. Accessed February 18,2012
The New York Times. Dark Side of a Natural Gas Boom. 2009. Accessed February 17,2012.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

1 comentario / 22 Feb 2012 por Lauren Musiello
IMSD /

Climate Change Blog: Uganda Municipal Waste Compost CDM Programme.

This Blog outlines a registered CDM small scale programme of activity in Uganda towards municipal waste composting. This programme will be introduced by the first time in the country with the support of the World Bank, the government of Netherlands and the government of Uganda including its National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) which will provide technical and financial support to the municipalities to set up and operate the facilities of small-scale waste composting of activities.

The location of activities will be within 56 districts of the country or any new districts that may be constituted in future, including Kampala. The starting date of the programme was 31 October 2007 and it will last for 21 years.

Uganda´s local urban body will manage improvement of its waste collection systems within the municipal area. The wastes collected would be transported to the compost facilities, where it will be aerobically composted. The compost will be sold, recyclables will be removed and sold, and the rejects from the process would be disposed off at the landfills/disposal sites.

The technology for solid waste composting is new in the country, another benefit is the fact that, the municipalities of Uganda are extremely resource constrained and most of their budgets are not funded through local taxes but funded by the state. Hence the waste compost facilities are sustained from the revenues generated from sale of compost and from the sales of emission reductions.

In Uganda there are no specific regulations that mandate waste composting until now. Before the CDM programme there was no municipal waste composting activity in practice. Moreover other waste management problems have been highlighted before this programme have started, which were:

• Lack of equipment, such as, skips, skip loaders, refuse dumpers.
• Budget constraints.
• Lack of sensitization, no sorting is done by the communities.
• Skips not efficiently used.

This facts shows the importance for the additionally of a CDM initiative towards waste management in Uganda.

In relation to vulnerability to Climate Change it can be demonstrated by the percentage of Uganda´s population living in cities which is 12 % of the total population and by the fact that the municipal councils can receive typically about 70 tons of waste per day.

One of the significant environmental concerns of the growing urban areas has been the management of municipal solid wastes, because many of the landfills sites are located adjacent to wetlands. The wetlands thus get contaminated by the leachate generated from the landfills after rainfalls which as result emits a large amount of methane into the atmosphere.

Therefore recovering the organic matter from municipal solid waste as compost can avoid methane emissions. Nonetheless the major quantity of waste reaching the collection site is organic in nature in Uganda. Thus the aerobic composting of the waste stabilizes and minimizes local pollution and completely eliminate the production of methane.

The Uganda´s CDM waste composting programme is also contributing to a sustainable development of the country by generating local employment in the environmental field in connection with this programme implementation.

However there are some drawbacks in order to make this programme more sustainable which is the fact that only 10% of farmers in Uganda utilize fertilizers. The use of fertilizers in Uganda is amongst the lowest in the world. According to the “Uganda Fertilizer Strategy 2006 Draft Report” it is estimated that between 1996 and 2000, fertilizer usage was 0.37kg/ha, compared to 4kg/ha in Mozambique, 6kg/ha in Tanzania, Malawi 16kg/ha, Kenya 31.6 kg/ha, South Africa 51kg/ha. Therefore there is a major need to promote the use of organic fertilizer out of waste compost in the country.

Nevertheless, Uganda´s Municipal Waste Compost Programme wants to serve as a model for other programmes that will promote sustainable waste management practices. Up to now the Uganda´s National Environment Management Authority has signed a co-operation agreement with the municipalities in two phases. The first phase was signed in 2005 with the nine municipalities of Mukono, Jinja, Mbale, Soroti, Lira, Mbarara, Kasese, Kabale, and Fort Portal. The second phase was signed in 2010 with eight municipalities of Masindi, Busia, Hoima, Mityana, Entebbe, Arua, Gulu and Tororo. This municipality cooperation Agreement set out the rights and obligations of each party in terms of the CDM waste compost programme activities.

References:

SMALL-SCALE CDM PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM SSC-PoA-DD) Uganda Municipal Waste Compost Programme. Version 1.6 Date : 2009-06-24

http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/K/8/6/K86ZSP735QI1CFLDXVA2JOHUGE09YB/PoA%20DD%20revised%20clean%20version.pdf?t=NXh8bHpzZmJifDBEI4diRadORog24z5kD1h-

2 comentarios / 22 Feb 2012 por Patricia Perez Costa
IMSD /