West Virginia Public Broadcasting
Telling West Virginia's Story
Scores of environmental regulators, lawyers, and other interested parties discussed what they will be facing when the Environmental Protection Agency releases its new rules on existing coal fired power plants later this year.
Lawyers are concerned with the possibility of excessive amounts of litigation over the issue, and some hope coal-rich states like West Virginia are given a great deal of flexibility to implement changes.
A federal health official says it's safe to use water contaminated by a chemical spill in West Virginia last month. The Centers for Disease Control and…
A federal health official says it’s safe to use water contaminated by a chemical spill in West Virginia last month.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention previously labeled the water “appropriate for use” by everybody, but not “safe.”
Agency spokeswoman Barbara Reynolds said the word choice doesn’t change guidance. Reynolds said Monday the agency wanted to recognize the desire of some to use the less scientific term ‘safe’ when discussing chemical levels in the water.
The Jan. 9 spill in Charleston tainted 300,000 people’s water for up to 10 days.
Last month, the CDC advised pregnant women to consider a different water source days after many people were told to drink the water. The CDC has since said everyone could have used the water when the ban was lifted.
The report, titled “The Social Costs of Carbon? No, The Social Benefits Of Carbon,” highlights a forecasted decline in oil demand in the world’s energy market.
Economist Roger Bezdek is the lead author of a report that predicts that coal is on track to replace oil as the world’s main energy source. Bezdek is the founder and president of Management Information Services, Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based economic and energy research firm. He is also a former Director of Energy Research and Development Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Bezdek’s report is a response to publications issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 and 2013 that have estimated the social costs of carbon.
The EPA says we needed to reduce carbon emissions in order to protect long term public health. Since burning coal and other fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide The Obama Administration and the EPA has been working to reduce emissions by creating tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles, and enforcing regulations on coal fired power plants.
“They’re trying to use these estimated costs of carbon in proposed regulation and rulemaking,” Bezdek says. “There’s a federal law that says to do this you have to do a valid cost-benefit analysis.”
That’s exactly what this report sets out to do—determine the BENEFITS of carbon. His findings in a nutshell: the social benefits of carbon outweigh the EPA’s estimated costs by orders of magnitude from anywhere from 50 to 1, to 500 to 1.
“There are people at the EPA and also inside and outside the government who are obsessed with trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels, and reduce production of carbon dioxide as if this is going to cause some sort of huge economic and social, environmental disasters. That’s highly questionable," Bezdek says.
Bezdek’s study quotes one expert (Robert Pindyck) that go as far as saying current models that forecast social cost of carbon are “close to useless.” The report also says those models are, “completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation.”
In fact, there’s a section of the report that talks about the benefit of Carbon Dioxide in the biosphere. According to the report, CO2 has increased along with the global human population. Since plants grow better with more CO2, they are more apt to be able to nutritionally support that exploding population.
“There are some direct benefits of carbon dioxide. It assists in agricultural productivity and plant growth. But the overwhelming benefits come from the fossil fuels that generate carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels have created the modern world and sustain it in terms of technology, standard of living, economics, GDP, etcetera. And all the forecasts for the foreseeable future of the next several decades indicate that in excess of 80 percent of the world’s energy will continue to be supplied by fossil fuels," Bezdek says.
To reach his economic findings Bezdek’s team looked at the past, present, and projected future benefits of fossil fuel utilization. He says by 2030 world population is forecast to reach 8.3 billion, and thus an additional 1.3 billion people will require access to energy. And when it comes to supplying that energy, his report finds that coal will be leading the way.
“Fossil fuels are essential for a decent quality of life,” Bezdek says. “Try going back and living in the 15th or 14th centuries if you want to live without fossil fuel utilization—without the benefits of industrialization.”
“And those [electrical benefits] are exactly the kinds of things that people in the 3rd world are desperate for to improve not only their standard of living, but their health and their well-being,” he adds.
Despite new advances in RENEWABLE energy technologies Bezdek estimates that transitioning away from fossil fuels just won’t be financially viable.
Takeaway
Bezdaz says that federal law prevents policy changes without a valid social costs/benefits analysis. And according to this report, the fossil-fuel path we’re on is good for everyone, since we’re all using fossil fuels already, and the benefits of that dependency are undeniable.
Bezdak says the caveat of his report is that it’s based on the given estimated social costs published by the EPA—estimations which he reiterates are based on limited data.
“These eminent analysts and economists and scientists have concluded that the estimates are essentially worthless for policy purposes,” Bezdek says.
Therefore, he says, instead of the benefits outweighing the costs of using fossil fuels such as coal 500-1, it may be more like 1000-1.
Meanwhile, the EPA also admits that their estimates are based on limited data and that they “do not currently include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature because of a lack of precise information on the nature of damages.” As such they say it’s likely their approximations are underestimates.
Editor’s Note: West Virginia Public Broadcasting reached out to other economists, policy think-tanks, and professors of environmental science for a reaction to this report but, no response was given.
The West Virginia Senate has unanimously passed a bill to conserve and invest a portion of oil and gas revenues to use for future infrastructure and economic development.
The Future Fund Bill passed Friday sets aside 25 percent of the severance tax revenues collected from private oil and gas companies above a $175 million benchmark. This benchmark projects funds needed to sustain government operations.
The fund would collect interest for six years before being used for economic development projects, building infrastructure and increasing teacher salaries.
Senate President Jeff Kessler said he was pleased the bill passed the Senate without any resistance or rejection. He said he hopes to see the state cash in on a growing oil and gas industry and to reserve some of its excess for future prosperity.
The two scientists leading the West Virginia Testing Assessment Project, or WV TAP, following the Jan. 9 chemical spill into the Elk River near Charleston provided an update on the project Friday. The briefing was held in a Department of Health and Human Resources conference room in downtown Charleston.
Dr. Andrew Whelton and Jeffrey Rosen spoke to reporters and said they have completed gathering samples of 10 homes across the area affected. Samples from both hot and cold water were taken.
The researchers said they have collected 900 samples, with 600 to be tested. The additional 300 will be stored in case of breakage during transport.
The samples being used will be tested in labs in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and California, Whelton said.
Governor Tomblin initially budgeted $650,000 for the project, but researchers requested an additional $112,000 to cover unanticipated costs. A spokesperson for Gov. Tomblin confirmed the request for additional funds has been approved.
The independent project is seeking to determine the odor threshold, as well as review the safety level of MCHM that was determined by state officials after the spill.
The odor threshold study is being conducted by Dr. Michael J. McGuire and Dr. Mel Suffet. Expert and consumer panels will be conducted, said Rosen.
A panel of experts to study the risks of exposure to MCHM is still being formed.
Whelton said the project will remain independent of the government and results of the study will not be handed over to state officials. He said the cooperation of the state is mainly limited to use of state facilities for news conferences, such as Friday’s.
A larger sample of homes is expected to be tested in the future, also as part of the WV TAP program.
Researchers said results from the pilot study of 10 homes are expected in one to three weeks and will be posted online at: wvtapprogram.com.
State environmental regulators have cited another violation at the West Virginia plant that spilled coal slurry into a stream last week.
The Department of Environmental Protection said the Kanawha Eagle preparation plant let more blackened water flow into the Kanawha River downstream Wednesday.
The additional release into the Kanawha occurred after snow melted and raised water levels in the affected stream, Fields Creek. The rising levels stirred up silt at the bottom of the creek. The creek overran some dams used to slow down water and catch slurry particles before they hit the Kanawha River.
On Feb. 11, the Kanawha County plant owned by Patriot Coal spilled 108,000 gallons of slurry, temporarily turning Fields Creek black.
State tests showed water quality at a treatment plant downstream in Huntington hasn’t changed.
