Tuesday, October 24, 2006


[click on the title above to hear the 15 minute audio broadcast]

From Radio Ecoshock, www.ecoshock.org.

The United States, the world’s largest source of human-made greenhouse gases, has ditched global efforts to control carbon dioxide pollution. Instead, following an alternative suggested by top NASA scientists, including James Hansen, America has developed a plan to control trace gases in the atmosphere, principally methane.

American scientists now claim that methane, as a greenhouse gas, and as a chemical agent that produces more harmful ozone, itself a greenhouse gas – may account for up to 30 percent of climate change. Through the EPA, the administration has set up a program to capture waste methane from landfill sites, coal mines, and other sources. Their Plan B for trace gases, the only plan to save the planet’s climate implemented by this administration, has been expanded to include about a dozen other countries – but not the top methane emitters.

Politically, the methane control plan has many advantages for the Bush administration. It leaves the oil companies and coal mining companies free to add unrestrained carbon to the atmosphere. Methane can be re-used as a valuable energy source when captured. And most human-induced methane comes from other less developed countries, instead of the United States. The onus for climate control falls on the major emitters, China, Russia, India, and Brazil.

Even if the plan makes scientific sense, it seems destined for failure in the realities of less developed countries with few resources. Still, the Methane to Markets Partnership is the only plan the United States, and now other countries like Canada, have in play. So we need to examine their claims that global warming and smog can be combated with the same program.

To understand what is being proposed, and whether it will save us, we need to educate ourselves about methane. We need to understand how this gas leads to chemical reactions in the atmosphere that is already killing millions of us by ground-level smog, and threatening all of us, by providing from 20 to 30 percent of the warming in our atmosphere.

Welcome to our rapid-fire methane primer. It’s the introduction to our second part in this series, the justification and evaluation of the trace gas control proposal emerging in many countries. We call that “the methane fix.”


Methane is an odorless gas at normal temperatures on Earth. Gas companies add a sulfur compound to let people know when it is leaking. Chemically, it is made up of one carbon atom attached to 4 hydrogen atoms, or CH4. Methane is the main ingredient of natural gas, which we burn in home heating, electricity production, and even to power automobiles.

When we burn methane, in the presence of oxygen, energy is released along with one molecule of carbon dioxide, and two molecules of water. That's less carbon dioxide that when oil or coal is burned, so methane gas is considered a cleaner burning fuel, from the perspective of climate change gases - but it still releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

Compared to other gases like nitrogen or oxygen, methane is fairly rare. In every ten million molecules of air, about 16 are methane. Yet on other planets, such as Saturn's moon Titan, methane is the dominant gas.

Methane itself is not toxic, but it is very explosive. Such explosions are the number one cause of the numerous deaths that occur during coal mining all over the world. There are also risks of natural gas explosions.

As natural gas, methane is difficult to transport long distances because it is so bulky. Other than pipelines, we would need gigantic containers to move it as a gas. The gas can be compressed if it is liquefied, at a temperature hundreds of degrees below zero. We call this Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG.


Scientists agree to measure the global warming potential of a gas by comparing it to a molecule of carbon dioxide, over a period of 100 years. By that measure, methane has 21 times the global warming potential of CO2, according to the EPA (other estimates vary slightly). A single molecule of methane will heat the Earth as much as 21 molecules of carbon dioxide. It is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Some sources say methane has doubled since the industrial age began in 1750, others say it has increased by 150%. Studies in ice cores show current methane levels are higher than at any time during the past 400,000 years.

Some scientific studies, done by Dickinson, Cicerone, and Ramanathan, estimate the heating impacts of methane in the atmosphere to be about half the amount generated by carbon dioxide. Others say methane is responsible for only 20% of global warming. The question is made more complicated by the fact that fossil fuel burning, the major source of CO2, also emits pollution particles that cool the Earth at the same time. More on this later.

Methane is recognized by the Kyoto Protocol as a greenhouse gas that needs to be controlled. Since methane is at least 20 times more powerful than CO2, removing 1 ton of methane is as good as removing 20 tons of CO2.


Methane is produced naturally on the planet from a variety of sources. Some rises from the Earth itself through mud volcanoes. The science of Earth bound methane is not fully understood yet.

We do understand how methane is produced by the plant world. When plant material rots without oxygen around, different bacteria are involved. That's called anaerobic decomposition - which means without air. For example, when plant matter decomposes under a wet swamp - it produces methane. The same can happen under permanently frozen ground, permafrost. Wetlands are the largest source of natural methane, about 76% of Nature's production of the gas comes from them. Tropical wetlands are a key factor.

Recent research from the Max Planck Institute in Germany has shown that plants also produce some methane during photosynthesis. So forests and grasslands make some methane, but that greenhouse gas is thought to be less than the total carbon dioxide warming potential consumed by plants, leaving forests as greenhouse gas reducers, or sinks. More science remains to be done on this balance.

The oceans, lakes, and soils also emit some methane. Termites, and some ruminating animals, such as cows, produce methane. There is another worrying collection of methane gas trapped in ice on the ocean floor. This is called methyl hydrate. If the oceans warm too much, this methane-laden slush could melt, releasing bubbles of global warming gases to the surface. There is some evidence this is already happening.

Climate change may also release more methane, by heating up the permafrost in Siberia and Northern Canada. Recent research shows five times more methane coming from Siberia than previously thought.

But more than half of all methane rising into the atmosphere comes from human-related activities. The 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, estimated that 60% of methane comes from our agriculture, industry, and waste. Humans are the biggest single source of methane.

In North America and Europe, the largest single source of methane comes from landfills, where our consumer waste decomposes under soil, without enough air. All our packaging, food waste, and industrial waste produces more global warming gases. If we reduce waste, we reduce climate change. In 2002, the United States EPA calculates that American landfills produced methane equavalent to 131 million metric tonnes of CO2.

Cattle, sheep produce methane in their stomachs as they digest plant material. Despite jokes about "farts" - these animals release methane through their noses. The EPA figured 114 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent came from methane produced by agricultural animals. But animal manure, especially from pigs, also produces prodigious amounts of methane, namely 39 million metric tonnes equivalent of CO2. If we add these two figures, American factory farms for meat production were responsible for 153 million metric tonnes equivalent of CO2 - more than landfills, and the largest single source of methane in the United States. Vegetarians argue a simple change of diet could stop the largest source of methane greenhouse gas, and we'll get to that argument in a separate program, called "The Methane Fix".

Human excrement also creates a lot of methane in wastewater treatment plants. Petroleum systems, especially leaky natural gas lines, add more methane to the atmosphere. Other lesser sources in the United States were rice cultivation, (where plant material rots underwater, just like in swamps,) and old coal mines.

The world-wide picture is a bit different - and with climate change, global emissions are what count. First of all, unlike carbon dioxide, the United States is not the biggest source of methane as a greenhouse gas. According to the U.S. Department of State, the largest emitters, in order of importance, are China, Russia (along with its former Republics), India - then the United States, followed by Brazil. These countries account for about half of all the human induced - or anthropogenic - methane released into the atmosphere.

In China, the biggest methane source, less comes from consumer waste, and most comes from rice paddies and coal mines. The largest human-made methane source in the number two country, Russia, comes from inefficient natural gas and oil systems. India's main methane contributions come from rice and livestock.

Some calculate that the industrialized world is responsible for about 20% of human-induced methane, and developing countries 80%.

So tackling methane emissions requires different strategies in different parts of the world. Note that fossil fuels and animal husbandry are methane problems all over the world. But we have to remember, this is not a smoke-stack problem which can be regulated by changes in big industry. Most of our sources of methane come from a wide-variety of normal human activities in the modern world. Even vegetarians eating rice are connected to methane from rice paddies. There is still disagreement about just how much methane comes from rice production, and we don't have firm figures.


Methane is removed from the lower atmosphere (called the "troposphere") by a chemical process. It reacts with a rare and unstable combination of a single oxygen atom and a single hydrogen atom, called a "hydroxyl radical." That's a term worth learning, because our future climate may partly depend upon having enough hydroxyl radicals. Many of us have learned about "anti-oxidants" to preserve our health, we need to know about hydroxyl radicals to preserve the planet's health.

Some methane is also lost to oxidation in soil, but this is minor compared to chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere. Some methane eventually escapes upward into the stratosphere.

Just how long methane can last in the atmosphere before it is zapped by hydroxyl radicals is still debated. Some sources say less than ten years, while others say up to 15 years. It is also possible that global warming may change the processes that remove methane, increasing its lifetime in the atmosphere.

In any case, methane doesn't last anywhere near as long as carbon dioxide, which, once created, can stay in the atmosphere 100 years or more. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but it doesn't last as long.

For reasons not yet understood, the level of methane in the atmosphere appears to have stabilized (at the much higher levels) since the 1990s. A study in 2003 by Dlugokencky reveals a steady level of methane between 1999 and 2002 at 1751 parts per billion by volume (ppbv).

Unlike CO2, the American government has taken steps to reduce methane emissions below 1990 levels, but this could not account for the current methane plateau in the atmosphere - given larger inputs from China, Russia, and India.

It is possible that drying of tropical wetlands, including the Brazilian Amazon, likely from climate change, may have offset the new methane coming from increased industrialization and agriculture, and even the warming in the Arctic. We don't know.

That is the scary part. We think human-induced methane emissions are rising around the world, despite some claimed reductions in a few industrialized countries. The latest science also points to new sources of natural methane, in large volumes, ready to be released by the melting Arctic tundra, and frozen methane from the bed of a warming sea. And we have no idea what is holding back this new wave of global warming gases for the past couple of years.

Scientists worry that world temperatures could jump rather suddenly, possibly within a few years, if the mysterious methane barrier is broken. The Americans, and their partners in the industrialized world, have a plan to control methane and some other trace greenhouse gases in their own countries. Some major scientists, including NASA’s James Hansen, have backed a methane control plan as a way to stave off the worst of climate change.

That is “the methane fix” – the subject of our next broadcast. Find it at www.ecoshock.org under “climate” in the Audio on Demand menu.

Or just look at the previous article in this blog.


A report from Radio Ecoshock.
- Alex Smith

This is the third in a series of broadcasts about the American-led alternative to controlling carbon dioxide emissions, in the desperate fight to control global climate change. The first part was an interview with Dr. Phil Austen an atmospheric scientist. That was followed by a primer on methane: what it is, where it comes from, and how it damages both our health and the climate. These can be downloaded from our website at www.ecoshock.org.

Now we look at the American program to control methane, as proposed by top NASA scientists, and as adopted by several industrialized countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and lately Canada. Can it work? Or will we fry?

A group of scientists from Harvard University, the Argonne National Laboratory and the EPA say that both air pollution and global warming could be mitigated by controlling methane gas. You will hear this proposal coming from various governments: "We'll fight smog, for your personal health, and stave off global warming - all at the same time!" Let's investigate.

In addition to its own global warming potential, methane is directly related to the production of ozone in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) - and ozone is also a greenhouse gas (as well as a killing agent in smog). The IPCC predicts more and more intense ozone pollution and smog by the year 2030, despite pollution control efforts. While the smog inducing nitrous oxides may decline up to 10% in developed countries, it is expected to increase by 130% in developing countries. And the A1 scenario from the IPCC predicts methane emissions could increase by 43 percent globally by 2030. That is why there could be worse global smog, despite localized benefits from pollution controls by industrialized countries.

In one example of this trend of linking smog and global warming, Arlene M. Fiore wrote an article in Geophysical Research letters in October 2002. Where there is plenty of methane, in the presence of nitrous oxide and sunlight, smog is the inevitable result, and much of that is so-called ground-level ozone, a Greenhouse Gas. If we could limit methane, while cleaning up nitrous oxide, we could curb smog and global warming at the same time, the argument goes.

An even stronger case for going after trace gases like methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide was made by James Hansen, the climate expert from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen has a long career in the field, and is well-regarded by environmentalists. He was the subject of recent news articles claiming to be muzzled by the Bush Whitehouse.

According to an article in the Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, Hansen and Makiko Sato claim that the climate could be stabilized with warming less than 1 degree, just by reducing methane and other trace gases - even if carbon dioxide zooms up to 520 parts per million. The authors suggested adding these trace gases to the Montreal Protocol, as a method of control.

Here is what Hansen said about it:

""Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas (GHG), and slowdown of its emissions must have priority. It will be a growing issue in international relations for decades, if not longer," .... "However, that does not necessarily mean that 'Kyoto' is the best way to address the trace gases. 'Kyoto' gives too little or no weight to gases such as methane, the trace gas HFC-134a, ozone and the precursor gases that form ozone. We could get moving now on non-carbon dioxide gases with benefits such as improved human health, in addition to a slowing of global warming. The resulting international good will might also make discussions about carbon dioxide more productive."

These scientists add that controlling human-made trace gases could more rapidly control warming, and so reduce the positive feed-back loops that could release natural methane from such sources as frozen methane (called clathrates) in the ocean, or from the Siberian permafrost melting.

This approach was also promoted by scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Jos Lelieveld, at atmosphere chemist there, says:

""It will be very difficult to control carbon dioxide in the short-term future. Not only because of energy [consumption] and political consequences, but also because the lifetime of carbon dioxide is enormously long."...

"And so if climate change is really affecting our daily lives in a really undesirable way-like stronger hurricanes or more droughts in some areas-then there may be the desire to do something on the short term." ...

"One of the few alternatives that we have there is to reduce methane."

So the American approach, under the pro-oil Bush administration, is to combine efforts to fight smog, with the battle to control global warming. As there is no effort from the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluter to limit CO2, the methane and trace gas approach is not just Plan A - it is their only plan. That is why we have to understand methane, ozone, and other trace gases - to find out whether this is just more fantasy, or a real plan that could work.

Another NASA scientist, Drew Shindell is calling for a whole new way of studying greenhouse gases. The IPCC scientists have generally totaled the amount of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to create models of expected climate change. Shindell says we have to look closer to the Earth's surface, to see where these gases are coming from, and how they interact chemically, before they end up as totals in the upper atmosphere.

For example, just knowing the raw data on the amount of methane produced doesn't give a good picture. Methane reacts with other chemicals, such as nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide from automobile and industrial exhausts, to change atmospheric chemistry, including producing more ground-level ozone.

Shindell's study suggests that methane may have double the impact on global warming, compared to previous calculations. The IPCC, just looking at the total amount of methane accumulated, attributed about one sixth of global warming was due to methane. But when all the chemical reactions related to methane are added, including the tropospheric ozone, methane may be responsible for as much as one third of the climate change we are seeing.

Shindell writes:

"If we control methane, which the U.S. is already starting to do, then we are likely to mitigate global warming more than one would have thought, so that's a very positive outcome," .... "Control of methane emissions turns out to be a more powerful lever to control global warming than would be anticipated."

And we have another paper forwarded by James Hansen, in January 2006, by Arlene Fiore and other scientists, titled "Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls." The authors argue that controlling methane will greatly reduce human deaths from pollution, because it reduces surface ozone as well. The savings in greenhouse gases are a bonus to cutting smog, they argue.

According to this study, reducing human-made methane emissions by just 20 percent, beginning in 2010, could prevent 30,000 deaths around the world in 2030. Whether that makes sense economically depends on how we value the added years to human lives. Is it cost-effective, when each extended life costs about $420,000 in methane control costs? For a Westerner, or if it happens to be your own life, or someone you love, you would answer "yes." Still, the main emphasis is reducing human deaths from air pollution, by controlling methane, rather than saving planetary life by controlling carbon dioxide, the gas considered by most to be the main actor in runaway climate change.

Meanwhile, other studies indicate that all countries are emitting far more methane than they declare. Bergamachi, for example, suggests the UK released 4.2 million tonnes of methane in 2004, instead of the 2.1 million tonnes declared by the government. During this study, the German government raised its estimates of methane emissions by 70%.

And that's in Europe. The largest sources, China, Russia, and India, don't really know how much methane they are releasing, and have very little in place to stop the hemorrhaging of this powerful greenhouse gas.

When we measure total methane in the atmosphere, the recent annual increases are being kept in check, in just the last few years, by some natural agent. We don't know what that protective mechanism may be, or how temporary it is. We could see a methane surge, with temperatures going up one to three degrees globally in a few years. That is possible.


The single largest source of methane in the developed countries is landfills leaking methane from the mountains of pointless consumer waste. If you demand less packaging, recycle more, and waste less, methane could be substantially reduced.

Your second personal option is also quite straight forward. Become a Vegan - a vegetarian with no animal products or bi-products. That's the solution offered by a group called EarthSave. At www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm you can find the controversial article titled "A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes," by Noam Mohr.

Animal husbandry may be the single largest human-made source of methane on the planet, when you add direct emissions from the animals, plus the gases coming from treatment of manure.

We have a massive increase of meat eating - 5 times more meat in North America, for instance. That is matched by a massive increase in the number of cows, pigs, and sheep. There are over a billion cows eating their way through feed grown with fossil fuels. In fact, modern agriculture uses natural gas - methane - to produce fertilizer. That gas leaks at production sites, at refineries, in pipelines, and in final use.

An article in the New Scientist in December, 2005 said that when all these fossil fuel inputs to factory farmed meat are considered, plus the methane produced by animals, you do more for the planet by changing to a Vegan diet, than buying a hybrid car. A meat eater produces the equivalent of almost 1.5 tonnes more carbon dioxide annually than a Vegan does.

The exact figures for animal use, and a proposal to trim back methane through changes of diet have not been considered seriously. Obviously, we'd rather burn in Hell than give up the burgers for a healthier diet, and a safer atmosphere.


Since the United States has no coherent plan to reduce carbon dioxide, it has invested a relatively small portion of its budget in a single plan, as proposed by it's NASA scientists, to reduce methane and other trace greenhouse gases. The Bush administration has actually reduced American methane emissions to 5% below 1990 levels, a kind of Kyoto for trace gases.

This effort is led by the Environmental Protection Agency, and spans many different government departments. It's called the Methane to Markets Partnership. For example, the government has helped coal mines in America capture methane to run power operations, and aided local governments who want to install methane capture devices to landfills. This government likes methane programs because they capture energy that has re-sale and re-use value, whereas carbon capture is more or less a straight expense with little payback, if any.

The Methane to Markets Partnership has been promoted as an international effort. So far Australia, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and most recently Canada, have become partners in the program. Each country tries to reduce its methane by recovering it.

Notice that the largest methane producers, Russia, China, India, and Brazil are not partners in this America effort. However, the Americans have invested a few million dollars in pilot projects in Asia. In 2006, the World Bank's Global Environment Facility is spending 7 million dollars, over 5 years!, to "support a comprehensive approach" to reduce the impact of concentrated livestock production there. Hardly a major investment in one of the top methane producing countries.

It's difficult to see how a global supply of this powerful greenhouse gas can be reined in without a much larger commitment by all countries, and a huge budget to implement it. In addition, the sources of methane are very diverse. Can we really re-work the way all Chinese and other Asian rice paddies are planted? Does the government of India have the control and resources to deliver top quality feed to all its cattle? Plus manure processing with methane capture facilities? Can we re-educate every peasant farmer?

What happens if the current methane capping mechanism, whatever that turns out to be, breaks down? What happens if natural sources of methane are released in large quantities, as a feed-back and bi-product of global warming, caused by uncontrolled carbon dioxide levels?

As a plan to save the planet, the methane fix has holes larger than the growing ozone hole in the stratosphere. We may please city dwellers by cutting down smog. We may have interesting looking pipes and plants to recapture methane in a few places. We may even reduce world-wide emissions of methane from human sources - and we must. But the methane scheme is just a secondary alternative to facing the carbon beast head on. Sadly, it looks like a political fix for an oil-based White House, and their supporting cast of other oil burners around the world.

Find out more about climate change from Radio Ecoshock, full-time environment radio, and downloadable broadcasts, at www.ecoshock.org.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006


Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper adopts American plans, or lack of plans, to combat climate change. For one thing, he claims he will clean up city smog, and that will fix the warming ruining Canada's arctic.

This is the first of a two-part exploration of the theory and practice of smog control as climate policy. I interview a cloud specialist from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Phil Austin. We re-discover another inconvenient truth - smog has helped shelter us from the true impacts of all the greenhouse gases we've already dumped into the atmosphere.

According to Dr. Austin, the world should already be 3 degrees hotter than before the industrial revolution, instead of 1 degree now. There's already that much carbon and other gases up there. But smoggy particles, sometimes continent sized banks of them, are reflecting sunlight, and causing chemical reactions, that protect us - unless it gets washed away in the rain....

In my opinion, this interview has lasting value. Pick it up as part of your own questions about our strange climate (and why it will get stranger.)

There is no copyright. Feel free to rebroadcast this piece.

Radio Ecoshock
radio [at] ecoshock.org

Tuesday, October 10, 2006


To hear the full broadcast, click the title above.

[opens with Orson Wells clip]
[this text does not include the many clips from CEE Bankwatch "Black Tears of Sakhalin"; BBC news short clips; and excepts from interview with Julian Darley, author of "High Noon for Natural Gas"]

In late September, the world's most expensive energy project, to develop the world's largest Natural Gas and oil field, skidded over an embankment. Suddenly, environmental permits were denied. At the highest levels, London, Washington, and Wall Street are protesting. Like a new revolution, Putin's Russia launches an energy battle, ticking away below the radar of the latest scandal headlines in the West.

Your own heat and electricity could be affected in years to come, in the struggle over the world's last remaining fossil fuels.

There is a new Natural Gas fight. Get used to it.

The next energy hope is on the other side of the world, on a remote sub-arctic island off the East Coast of Russia. There, Shell Oil, along with two Japanese partners, is developing the Sakhalin Two oil and gas project.. The $20 billion dollar complex of offshore oil platforms, pipelines, and loading ports, is 80 percent complete. It was expected to reach full production in 2008. All those gas delivery contracts to various companies, including Japan's largest electricity providers, have been signed.

Now the consortium can't get the necessary environmental approvals to operate.

Russia is reneging on the sweet-heart deal given to the multinationals, including Exxon, back in 1994, by the prostrate post-communist government of Boris Yeltsin. Enriched and emboldened by their new oil wealth, Putin's government wants to take back a share in the fossil fuel bonanza waiting below the sea, off Sakhalin Island.

Financiers are calling foul. Both the White House and Downing Street have protested. Some are suggesting that all new investment with the Russians is now in question. A deal is a deal, no matter how stinking, unjust, and environmentally irresponsible it is.

The European Union has said all future investments in Russia are in doubt, and this act is, quote, "providing uncertainties for the world's future energy supply."

Most of you heat, and perhaps cook with natural gas. Unseen, it also powers most of the new electricity generation in both Europe and North America. But American and Canadian supplies of Natural Gas have been in decline for over a decade. Canada, the former Gas giant, is expected to run down by 2014, just four years after the Olympics in Vancouver.

So everyone, from Beijing to Ottawa, is scrambling to lock in supplies from across the world - from Qatar, from Indonesia, and especially from Russia. The European economy could not survive a year without natural gas from Russia. That's why this fight over resources on a remote island goes right into your home.

According to the BBC: "Sakhalin 2 is estimated to have total reserves of about one billion barrels of oil, and 500 billion cubic meters of gas, making it one of the world's largest combined oil and gas projects."

Putin's bureaucrats are withholding the permits - citing ecological concerns. Big environment groups, like Friends of the Earth, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace, agree that Shell's mega project threatens the last Pacific Western Grey Whales on earth, a thousand pristine salmon streams, and a wilderness wildlife haven.

Without the lure of Natural Gas and oil, our mega-corporations would never visit Sakhalin. It would be left to the 40,000 islanders - who, incidentally, get none of the benefits. They live in classic Russian poverty, and won't even get a bit of the gas to heat their concrete huts. It's all for us, none for them.

Leave your car and your heated room behind. Let's travel to one of those faraway places, where it all comes from.

It's called Liquid Natural Gas, or LNG. Of course this gas piped to the surface has to be frozen, at hundreds of degrees below zero, to compress and transport it to the West in supertankers. It's the coming thing, and new LNG unloading terminals are being proposed East, West, North and South.

Shell Oil, the world's third largest company by revenues (over $300 billion a year in sales) discovered a huge natural gas field in Sakhalin, an island hundreds of miles long, just north of Japan. In fact, Japan and Russia have been disputing ownership of Sakhalin for almost a hundred years. Now that it's loaded with energy, the State with the biggest nuclear arsenal wins.

Japan desperately needs that energy, since it has none of its own. So two of its largest super-conglomerates, Mitsubishi and Mitsui, joined Shell as minority owners, to strike a deal with the drunken Boris Yeltsin. That was in 1994, when the Russian treasury was too broke to pay its teachers and miners.

And what a deal it was. The Russian State would get nothing until the multinational oil companies recouped all their development money, and the lease for the site was a princely $50,000 a year. Exxon also got into the action, opening an oil drilling platform at the South end of the Island.

Except for a small port on the southern tip, Sakhalin is surrounded by ice for six months a year. Shell needed a way to pump out its product year-round, and their giant gas field was about 500 miles further north. So they are building an underground pipeline, to run 500 miles to the open port - the whole length of the island. And they need another pipeline system under the sea, to get their oil and gas to the island terminal.

The main drilling platform, one of those giant city-like structures that appear in TV documentaries, and it's system of feeder pipelines, are located outside a bay that is inhabited by other sentient mammals. These are the elusive Pacific Western Grey Whales.

The unique Pacific Grays, related to those that calve off Baja in Mexico, were presumed extinct, hunted to death for their oil. But it turned out they found a remote island, where they could breed unseen for over a hundred years, until they were re-discovered in 1977. That is the bay at Sakhalin Island. They are magnificent, intelligent ocean creatures. There are about a hundred of them left.

[audio, - if one killed a year, that' s it]

Now their breeding ground is the site of monster platforms, tankers, and construction ships, oil and gas leaks, and industrial chemicals. And that's before the world's biggest gas operation starts pumping.

The World Wildlife Fund has been watching the whales from an observation post. (all in Sak_Clip_OneWWF_OneWhaleDies 20 sec).
from: BBC_050915 Oil Giant...] see also: Sak_4_RussianexplainsOilSpillDamage_14 sec_CEE.wav &

The biggest worry: an oil spill under ice. Ice surrounds the island half the year, yet these platforms are drawing both oil and gas from deep on the ocean bottom.

Now let's travel to the Sakhalin Island itself. At the edge of the Russian empire, the Island was closed to all foreign visitors. It was the site of a secretive military base. The 40,000 islanders were the victims of splendid neglect by the Soviets. This continued under the broken post-communist state. Most lived by subsistence fishing, from the riches of the sea.

Then a miracle happened. Vast riches were discovered, and Western multinationals promised to inject tens of billions into the Sakhalin project. Yet today, most islanders continue to live in poverty, sidelined in the scramble for energy and power. They won't even get a drop of gas to heat their homes, in this sub-arctic climate.

The gas, the oil, and the money all go to Moscow, Shell Oil, Mitsubishi, and Mitsui. And about 5,000 foreign workers have arrived to collect the paychecks.

Worse, the islander's food supply and fish economy is endangered. Not only is a tanker spill inevitable, but the giant pipeline project running down the island is a recipe for lasting disaster. As a big scar is cut down through the pristine landscape, it must cross more than a thousand salmon bearing streams. The silt of construction threatens every one of them - because salmon avoid dirt in the water. The salmon fishery provides one third of all the income for the islanders.

And we know these pipelines, just like the ones in Alaska, always develop leaks, large and small.

The pipeline crosses 23 geological fault lines, in an area famous for its seismic activity. Earthquakes and tremors are also inevitable, threatening undetected leaks, or even floods of oil and gas underground, and in the waters.

[clip on seismic activity]Sak_6_Pipeline_SeismicArea_58sec_CEE.wav]

The Russian government is quite right to withhold environmental approval in such a situation. A lot of changes have to be made, but the project is wrong and unsustainable in the first place. Remember, none of this would be happening if you and I learned how to use alternative energy and conserve. Or if our economy could operate without raping foreign lands and species.

Cynics speculate the environmental permits are just chess pieces in a geo-political game to re-write ownership of Russian natural resources.
Through moves like jailing the Yuko oil head, Putin is re-asserting public ownership of the country's fossil fuel wealth. And he's not afraid to anger the largest multinationals in the world - because hardly anyone can operate now or in the future without Russian natural gas.

This is so important, natural gas deals are made by heads of State. Last summer, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper's priority on meeting Putin for the first time, was to seal a deal for a billion bucks worth of gas for Canada. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel went calling, she was glad to come back with another gas contract - gas from the Shtokman field - originally intended for the US market. It's a free-for-all of desperate energy buying.

Meanwhile, Bush's regime seems intent on re-creating aspects of the Cold War. They have sanctioned the Russian State arms company, Rosoboronexport, and other big Russian companies, for selling arms and reactors to Iran. That's when the American gas contracts disappeared to the Germans.
It's hard-ball with home heating, and brinkmanship with fuel for electricity plants.

The Russians have also denied permits to American giant Exxon Mobil, who wanted to expand their Sakhalin 1 project on the Island. And they have protested Shell's new claims that Sakhalin 2 cost $20 billion to develop, double the original estimate. Why should they care? Because Shell apparently promised the Russian state gas company, Gazprom, as 25% buy in, in exchange for rights in other Arctic gas and oil fields. Now the Russians have to give up twice as many resources, just to get back in at Sakhalin.

Meanwhile, environmentalists are trying to shut bank doors against further financing of the Shell's Sakhalin monster project. The Shell consortium, called Sakhalin Energy, applied for a $300 million dollar loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the EBRD. That institution was set up in 1991, with tax payers' money, to help rebuild the former Soviet Republics, after the fall. Now Shell, with tens of billions of profits lately, want the taxpayers to fund their environmentally damaging project at Sakhalin. Groups like Friends of the Earth are calling foul, and saying no.

You can see a good video about all this, and see for the Island's beauty and sadness for yourself, in a video called "Sakhalin's Black Tears". It's from The CEE Bankwatch Network, released January 2006. Go to Google Video, and search for "Sakhalin" spelled Sakhalin. It's 17 minutes long, and you will feel you have been there.

Hopefully, viewers will see a million dark figures lurking in the background of every frame of this story: themselves.

Because it's the same all over the world. Wherever the oil and gas industry lands, the maximum amount of energy and profits go out, the bare minimum stays in the community (that's capitalism folks!) - and the pollution lingers long after the party is over.

In Nigeria, the Ogoni Tribe living among the wells, pipelines, and pollution were kept impoverished. The greatest Ogoni spokesman, and environmental protestor, Ken Sara Wiwa, was murdered by the police, to stop criticism of the Shell project there.

In Saudi Arabia, the Shiites who live in the oil fields watch the wealth pumped out to the Sunni Royal family off in Riyadh. The people of Venezuela may finally get a piece of the pie, despite CIA attempts to install oil executives into the government, instead of the popular Hugo Chavez. Natural gas was pumped out of Bolivia for years, in the midst of abject poverty for the people.

It's energy colonization, it's dangerous and destabilizing. We can expect terrorism and wars to come.

And it all feeds the coming climate chaos. We can't afford to burn the stuff anyway.

These are OUR energy crimes. We take what we need, and claim we don't know what oil addiction costs people and the environment.

[Darley clip we have to get off gas]

This report is from Radio Ecoshock, the Net's only all environment radio station, at www.ecoshock.org. Tune in, free.


Sunday, October 01, 2006

Toward a Carbonless Economy

Here's an interview with Guy Dauncey, author of "Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Climate Change. It's 20 megabytes, and 21 minutes.

You can rebroadcast this piece, so long as you leave the CFRO station ID tag on the end.

Audio: slight hum but still useful as an important interview - some positive vision and solutions for energy and greenhouse gases.

Alex Smith