| |
|
Saturday, December 8, 2007
|
|
Make sure you buy the Rocky starting Monday. They're running a series on Colorado as a national sacrifice zone and the energy boom across the state. They write:
On Monday a 24-page section will focus on what has happened to the money that's been flowing into government coffers for decades from oil and gas drilling and what we can learn from what other states have done.
On Tuesday, a 24-page section will explore the environmental impacts of the boom, what's known and what we don't know.
On Wednesday, a 20-page section will chronicle how rural communities awash in prosperity from the boom also are experiencing labor and housing shortages and other social ills.
On Thursday, a 20-page section will explain the various proposals before the legislature and will share a cautionary tale of how Colorado's policies were formed decades ago in a session much like the one that begins in January. Thursday's section concludes with Gov. Bill Ritter and other state politicians, industry and environmental leaders debating the way ahead.
"2008 pres"
10:07:50 AM 
|
|
Environment Colorado's new report When it Rains, It Pours: Global Warming and the Rising Frequency of Extreme Precipitation in the United States [pdf] is stirring up conversation and controversy. Here's a report from The Telluride Watch. They write:
Scientists have said for years that global warming was "loading the dice" when it comes to increasing the frequency of severe storms, and a new Environment Colorado report makes it clear that Colorado and the Mountain West is already experiencing extreme downpours and heavy snowstorms much more frequently. Specifically, the new report found that storms with heavy rainfall or snow are up 30 percent in Colorado and 25 percent across the Mountain West compared to 60 years ago. "At the rate we're going, what was once the storm of the decade will soon seem like just another downpour," said Keith Hay, energy advocate at Environment Colorado. Hay pointed to the rainstorm that hit Denver in March of 2003 as an illustration of what more extreme rainstorms could mean for the region. That storm dumped over five inches on the area. "More frequent downpours, fueled by global warming, will hurt Colorado's water quality and leave Colorado even more vulnerable to dangerous flooding in years to come," said Hay.
The new Environment Colorado report...examines trends in the frequency of large rain and snow events across the continental United States from 1948 to 2006. Using data from 3,000 weather stations and a methodology originally developed by scientists at the National Climatic Data Center and the Illinois State Water Survey, the report identifies storms with the greatest 24-hour precipitation totals at each weather station, and analyzes when those storms occurred. Nationally, the report shows that storms with extreme precipitation have increased in frequency by 24 percent across the continental United States since 1948. At the state level, 40 states show a significant trend toward more frequent storms with extreme precipitation, while only one state, Oregon, shows a significant decline.
Key findings for the Mountain West and Colorado include: storms with extreme precipitation increased in frequency by 25 percent in Mountain West from 1948 to 2006; Colorado experienced a 30 percent increase in extreme rainstorms during the period studied; Grand Junction shows a significant increase in the frequency of large storms with heavy precipitation, roughly estimated to be a 53 percent increase over the nearly 60-year period...
According to the most recent science, the United States must reduce its total global warming emissions by at least 15 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050 in order to prevent the worst effects of global warming. "Steep reductions in global warming pollution are challenging but achievable," noted Hay, "and we already have the energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies we need to get started." The U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee is expected to vote on amendments to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), a global warming bill introduced by Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Warner (R-VA). While recognizing the important efforts of the bill's supporters on this critical issue, Environment Colorado said that the legislation must be significantly strengthened to address the challenge of global warming. Specifically, the bill's current pollution reduction targets fall short of what the science says is necessary to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and the bill gives away far too many subsidies to dirty and dangerous energy sources.
Readers will of course be surprised that dissenting opinions about the report are popping up already. Here's an article about the report from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write:
While a new study by a state environmental group says extreme storms in Colorado are on the rise due to increasingly warmer temperatures, a state climatologist and another climate expert doubt the validity of the study's methods...
Nolan Doesken, state climatologist and Colorado State University senior research associate, said precipitation is hard to predict and can vary depending on the time period the change is measured. "Had they done the same study from 1900 to 2006 instead of 1948 to 2006 they would have gotten some noticeably different results," Doesken said. "You really need the longest period of record possible for any study like this." With or without climate change, precipitation is extremely variable and hard to measure, Doesken said. "It makes it seem like we didn't use to have big storms, now we do," Doesken said. "We've been having big storms since the 1800s." Doesken said, although he believes there is cause for concern with climate change, the study might be somewhat exaggerated.
The study also claims increased precipitation with extreme storms could cause flooding and pollution of water ways. Based on past research, there is no evidence of increased flooding, said Roger Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and an associate professor of environmental studies. "There is no sign of increasing flood damages, even without considering the effects of population growth and development," Pielke wrote in an e-mail to the Coloradoan. Hay said that, although no one storm can be tied to global warming, it's clear the trend will be increased periods of dryness and extreme weather events, and something should be done about it sooner rather than later. "The carbon we have put up there is going to stay there," Hay said. "Acting urgently and aggressively now to address global warming will put us on a path that will hopefully lead to a decrease in extreme storms."
9:42:43 AM
|
|
Here's a look at Powertech's proposed uranium mine in Weld County from the Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald. From the article:
A proposed Weld County uranium mine would not contaminate the environment or subject residents to adverse health effects, a Powertech official said Friday. "We're being very careful," James Bonner, vice president of exploration for Powertech Uranium Corp., told the Loveland Kiwanis Club. "We're proving the science before we get in, and we will continually prove that science after we're there."[...]
The company plans to use a process called in-situ mining, which involves pumping treated water into uranium-laced deposits to dissolve the mineral so the uranium can be pumped to the surface. The uranium is then removed from the water, and the water is returned to the area. The process, which was tried in Weld County in the 1970s and has also been done in Wyoming and Texas, is less intrusive and more benign than traditional hard-rock mining, Bonner said. But Powertech's plans have drawn sharp criticism from politicians, residents, the Larimer County Medical Society and the Fort Collins City Council, among others...
The company is collecting data on groundwater flows, weather, air quality, vegetation, wildlife and other information, which will help the company restore the area to its natural state when it finishes mining, Bonner said. During the mining process, though, the water in the area will be safe to drink, and the company will have monitoring wells installed for state regulatory officials to check, he said. Bonner also pointed to epidemiology studies that have shown uranium mining and milling activities have not had an adverse effect on the health of nearby residents. "They're not finding an increase in cancer," he said...
The uranium mine would also provide an economic boost, funneling about $2 million in severance taxes to the state over 10 years and creating an additional 100 jobs that have an average salary of $65,000 a year, Bonner said. The mining process may take about a year and a half, Bonner estimated, but the whole project, including restoration, should take 12 to 15 years to complete.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
"2008 pres"
7:45:18 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:49:34 PM.
|
|
|
