Chile's renewables sector needs an equal playing field to realize its full potential

Chile has all imaginable potential to become a Latin American leader in renewable energy development.  Yet despite its extraordinary and varied natural resources, apparent political will, institutional stability, and an economy thirsty for new jobs, the sector seems to be growing rather hesitantly.  During a recent trip to Santiago, my colleagues Susan Casey-Lefkowitz and Douglass Sims, and I, heard time and again why:  there is a widespread perception that the costs of renewable technologies are too high and so they are not economically viable.  But if the total, real costs of the alternatives – large hydro and coal – are calculated, renewables suddenly look a lot more attractive.

Chile’s abundance of renewable natural resources is impressive and well known – solar, geothermal, wind, ocean, tidal and mini-hydro potential are all remarkable in this long, thin country.  The political will to develop this potential is also apparent.  On May 21st, Chilean President Sebastian Piñera announced that he wanted to double the required amount that non-conventional renewable energy (ERNC)* will contribute to the country’s total generation from 10 to 20% by 2020.  In doing so, the President backed up the pledge he made in early March, when, during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he said that “renewable energy, environmentally friendly energy” would be an integral part of the country’s future development after the massive earthquake on February 27th. 

Last month, the Minister of Energy, Ricardo Raineri, expressed his intent to push for net-metering in Chile, which would allow smaller, independent energy projects like ERNC to connect to the grid, effectively buying energy from and selling it to the grid in a two-way stream.  This policy would be a very helpful support mechanism for ERNC.  In addition, the new Ministry of Energy, which was just established on February 1st of this year, is organizing workshops to educate regional leaders and governors about ERNC solutions.  And almost a year ago, the Center for Renewable Energy (CER) was started to help independent projects in the sector get off the ground. 

With a national unemployment rate of 8.8%, which is as high as 15.5% in regions most affected by the earthquake, and President Piñera’s pledge to create 1 million jobs, the creation of a robust renewables industry would provide the economic growth and the employment opportunities Chileans are looking for.  So what’s the hold up? 

While in Chile, the discussions we had with government representatives, energy consultants and technical experts all yielded the same conclusion:  the costs of ERNC are just too high.  But too high compared to what?  The two alternatives currently on the table are large hydro and coal.  The first is best illustrated by the US$7 billion, 2750MW proposed dam scheme HidroAysén; the second by the US$4.4 billion, 2100MW proposed plant called Castilla.  Both are considered to be cheap energy solutions relative to ERNC, but neither of their price tags includes the array of externalities which would be incurred on the public and the government, and no one seems to have done a detailed comparison of the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in Chile.

In Chile, water rights are free.  Large hydro projects are therefore relatively cheap to run compared to fossil generation because the “fuel” (water) is free.  (This effectively provides a subsidy for hydropower, which I plan to discuss in a later post).  So even though large dams require a huge up-front investment, they still seem like attractive options because their operating costs are so low once the initial capital investment has been repaid.  Yet without taking into account the costs incurred from environmental damages and losses in other sectors, such as Tourism, how will the true price tag of large hydroelectric dams be known or considered?  In the case of HidroAysén, the US$7 billion projection does not include the expected losses to Aysén’s growing Tourism industry, or the environmental externalities that the project’s five dams and 1300-mile long transmission line would inflict.  Large hydro would seem like a less attractive option, I suspect, if these were taken into account.

Chile imports most of the coal it uses.  Although coal is inexpensive (at the present), purchasing this fuel from other countries still adds to the plants’ operating costs.  So after the initial capital investment of building a coal-fired power plant is settled, there are some additional costs that these companies must pay.  However, electricity costs in Chile are among the highest in the region, so profits are still a sure thing.  What isn’t added to these costs is the damage that coal does to public health and to the environment.  Chile does not have a law regulating emissions (one is being debated in Parliament now), so these externalities are very real –and very expensive—considerations that should be calculated into the overall costs.

The beach town Las Ventanas, and the power plants there, entering from the highway (top) and on the beach (bottom).

On the other hand, while ERNCs may have a high per kWh cost at the present (as I said above, an up-to-date LCOE analysis needs to be done), these figures are falling as technology advances, manufacturing costs and operating know-how increases.  They truly have no fuel costs and can have minimal environmental impacts (large hydro always has significant impacts), so the large up-front investment would cause many fewer externalities.  Furthermore, the fostering of these new industries would necessitate new training, labor, construction, maintenance, technical expertise and business know-how – in short, the factors that help grow and economy and create jobs.

Chile has made some initial steps in this direction.  As I mentioned above, the country has a national ERNC law (Ley 20.257, available here).  It states that as of January 1st, 2010, 5% of the energy that large generators feed to the grid must come from ERNC sources; this percentage will incrementally grow to 10% by 2020.   If President Piñera’s new aim is approved, the 2020 goal will be raised to 20%.  The Corporation for Production Growth has some financing mechanisms to help small projects overcome financial hurdles.  And international companies are increasingly looking to Chile for new wind farm development.

The three wind turbines that power Coyhaique, the capital city in the Patagonia region of Aysen.

But to get the entire sector really growing, the government is going to have to give some support.  President Piñera’s doubling of the 2020 ERNC goal was ambitious, forward-thinking and encouraging.  However, neither he nor Energy Minister Raineri has presented a roadmap of how to get there.  Without incentivizing mechanisms of some kind, like feed-in-tariffs or subsidies, to levelize costs, ERNC projects will remain too risky for investors.  Without including the true costs of coal and large hydro in their overall price tags, ERNC will continue to seem economically impractical.  And without a robust ERNC sector, massive projects based on old technologies, such as HidroAysén and Castilla, will continue to threaten public healthy, stymie economic growth, and damage the environment.

*In Chile, the phrase “non-conventional renewable energy,” (the abbreviation, ERNC, comes from the Spanish “energias renovables no-convencionales”) is used to exclude large hydro projects over 20MW from the category.

Kudos to Oregon for Funding Non-Lethal Work to Prevent Wolf-Livestock Conflicts

According to a recent article in the Idaho Statesman, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is using part of a federal grant to pay for a special range rider to monitor cattle grazing in northeastern Oregon.  The rider’s mission is to haze nearby wolves away from livestock.

The range rider is equipped with a horse, a four-wheeler, and a radio receiver to pick up signals from any of the three radio-collared wolves in the local pack.  Oregon’s wildlife agency will also be sharing its wolf location information with him.

This is great news.

Livestock conflicts are the number one source of wolf mortality in the Northern Rockies.  When a wolf kills a sheep or a calf, it becomes a dead wolf walking, as the Orwellian-named federal agency Wildlife Services will “serve” that “wild life” in short order.

Therefore, the best way to protect wolves and livestock in the Northern Rockies is to prevent conflicts from happening at all.  There are myriad non-lethal prevention methods available (e.g., range riders, guard dogs, electric fencing, night penning, etc.), but each costs time, money, and human resources. 

And thus it’s imperative that the Northern Rockies states make funds available to help ranchers implement more non-lethal prevention tools. 

Doing so is an uncontroversial win-win opportunity for everybody, which is pretty rare in the wolf world these days.

(Photo by 20after4 on Flickr)

A Vision of Pebble Mine's Future Playing Out Today?

Imagine, a “sudden leakage of the waste water pond” at the planned Pebble Mine – contaminating the famed Bristol Bay watershed that currently sustains one of the most productive fisheries in the world – Alaska’s wild salmon fishery, generating over $400 million each year.  After the leak is revealed, imagine Anglo American’s Board of Directors – the British mining giant with a 50% interest in the Pebble project – issuing a statement expressing “its deep regret regarding the incident and the improper handling of information disclosure by the company, for causing substantial losses to the fish farmers located at the reservoir downstream of the mine and having a harmful impact on society.”

Turns out that it’s not that hard to imagine; you just have to read the exact same statement that ZiJin, China’s sixth-largest copper producer, recently issued after “2.4 million gallons of acidic copper waste spilled from its Zijinshan mine, poisoning enough fish to feed 72,000 residents for a year.”

I have another game for you.  Which company, Anglo American or ZiJin, made the following statements?

     A.  “We pursue gold and silver, but care more about clear water and green mountains.”

     B.  “We treasure [natural] resources and will use the best science and technology to ensure that they are protected.”

     C.  “[Company X’s] environmental vision is to minimise harm to the environment by designing, operating and closing all of our operations in an environmentally responsible manner.”

     D.  “Company [X] implements a sustainable development strategy for the mines, ensuring a coordinated and healthy development of various undertakings including environmental protection and mining.  It promises that all mines to be constructed will be built into ‘green mines.’”

It’s tricky right?  They all reflect the same platitudes.  ZiJin made statements A and D and Anglo American made statements B and C.  You probably don’t have to do too many internet searches before you can come up with similar statements from BP.  But the point is not whether these statements are true or are backed up in practice, the point is that regardless of the best intentions, accidents happen and even the best run mines leak.

Knowing the risk, weighing the benefits against the costs, is it any wonder that the people of Bristol Bay Alaska and its watershed are worried about the impact the proposed Pebble Mine will have on their environment and livelihoods?  Maybe that’s why the project, proposed by Anglo American and its Canadian-based partner Northern Dynasty Minerals, is overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of the region, with the latest surveys indicating over 80 percent opposition in the Bristol Bay and Lake Peninsula Boroughs.

Of course, they have good reason to be worried and the common sense not to place their trust in companies that have one goal – maximization of shareholder profit when planning, constructing, and operating mines around the world.  As my colleague Joel Reynolds, who is leading NRDC’s campaign against the Pebble Mine project, has detailed most recently here and here, the proposed mine is an unreasonable and unacceptable risk.  Today’s news out of China helps show us why.

Whitebark pine moves one step closer to endangered species protections

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is scheduled to announce tomorrow that endangered species protection for whitebark pine “may be warranted.”  This preliminary finding triggers a one year review before a final decision is issued, but is a positive indication that the service agrees that whitebark pine qualifies for protection under the Endangered Species Act.  Tomorrow’s announcement comes as a result of a lawsuit that NRDC filed earlier this year to compel the government to issue a decision on our petition to list the whitebark pine as endangered. (UPDATE: Here is a link to FWS' press release and the published finding in today's federal register. Public comment is now open until September 20th.)

If listed, whitebark pine will be the first, broadly distributed tree species to be designated as an endangered species.  And the consequences of potentially losing this species are tremendous – not just because of its wide distribution throughout western US and Canada, but because of the important role it plays in its ecosystem.  As a high-elevation, foundation species, whitebark pine is often the first to colonize the harshest, most inhospitable environments where it provides shade and creates windbreaks allowing other plants to be able to colonize.  It is additionally a keystone species – having profound effects throughout its environment by regulating water runoff and stabilizing soil thereby influencing hydrological processes and by supplying food and shelter for many species including birds, squirrels and bears.

Whitebark pine is currently suffering from a combination of threats that have been exacerbated by climate change.  An invasive fungus called blister rust has slowly been weakening whitebark pine over the past century throughout its range.  With rising temperatures, mountain pine beetles have been able to survive previously frigid winters and expand their range into higher elevations where whitebark pine has no evolved defenses to the beetles.  This, combined with fire suppression practices that have likely contributed to the presence of large, continuous swaths of mature forest stands, has allowed the beetles to move swiftly through whitebark pine territory leaving a sea of dead trees in their wake.

             Photo courtesy of Jane Partiger of Ecoflight

While the issues are complex and sometimes even daunting, only a coordinated effort that mobilizes resources and research efforts to address the threats to whitebark pine will be able to meet the task.  Such an effort could step up current restoration efforts as well as identify and protect key refugia areas for trees that are free of disease and beetle infestation, for example.  And resources should be dedicated to on-going research efforts to combat the mountain pine beetle outbreak within the range of whitebark pine. 

Recently, Canada’s scientific advisory group on endangered species (COSEWIC) recommended whitebark pine be added to Canada’s Species At Risk Act.  Tomorrow's decision by US Fish and Wildlife is a similar acknowledgement that whitebark pine is in trouble.  Both of these announcements are welcome news, however they are only first steps.   Now Canada and the US must move quickly to finalize their decisions and enact endangered species protections for this important, widely distributed, keystone species.   

NRDC Goes to Court: Sperm Whales vs. BP

A few months ago, as oil began to gush from the wellhead and it had become clear to all but BP’s Tony Hayward that we had a major environmental disaster on our hands, I blogged about the Gulf’s small population of sperm whales.

I was particularly concerned about the sperm whales because BP's oil happened to be gushing directly into their neighborhood.  For more than one hundred years, mothers and calves have congregated in the Mississippi Canyon, a large submarine valley that extends south into the ocean from the Mississippi Delta.  Male whales like to range across the northern Gulf, but for mothers and calves the canyon is prime nursing habitat, and they’re not often seen outside of it.  Now their home is encompassed by oil; one young animal has already been found floating dead in the water (a rare find); and the government is launching a special research cruise to find out what is happening to them and to another small, imperiled population of whales to their east.

NRDC has been working over the past weeks to improve the science essential to helping the population recover.  But we are also seeking to reverse the oil-mad policies that led to this mess in the first place and that continue to doom the sperm whales and every other species in the industrialized Gulf.

One policy that must be changed is the government’s astonishing disregard of its own wildlife laws.  Each year the Interior Department approves hundreds of drilling plans and exploration permits for the northern Gulf without taking step one to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act.  These laws are important because they require the government and industry to take every practicable measure to reduce harm to wildlife.  In the Mississippi Canyon, this could well have meant capping the sperm whales’ exposure to seismic blasting and taking additional precautions against the risk of an oil spill in their nursery.     

This week, we filed the first of several lawsuits to restore the rule of wildlife law in the region.  We began by challenging the government’s free-wheeling approach to seismic surveys—what my colleague Cynthia Sarthou, from the Gulf Restoration Network, calls “Exhibit B in how the Gulf of Mexico is suffering from the abuses of the oil industry.” 

To search for deep deposits of oil, industry trolls the ocean with high-powered airguns that, for weeks and months on end, regularly pound the water with sound louder than virtually any other man-made source save explosives.  These surveys have a vast environmental footprint (see fact sheet here), disrupting feeding, breeding, and communication of some endangered species over literally hundreds of thousands of square miles.  For the Gulf’s sperm whales, they mean less food: even moderate levels of airgun noise appear to seriously compromise the whales' ability to forage.      

Since January, the Interior Department approved nine of these surveys in the same Mississippi Canyon that the sperm whales need for their survival—all without complying in the most fundamental ways with our environmental laws.  It is intolerable to think that the same animals now dying in the massive spill will have to contend in the brave new world that follows with the industry’s constant pounding, without any serious attempt to mitigate the harm.

This must stop.  Look for more to come.

Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico Cause Harm to Marine Mammals

As we continue to hear more about animals trapped in the toxic sludge that is the BP oil disaster fall out in the Gulf, NRDC joined a coalition in suing the renamed Minerals Management Service (MMS) – it now styles itself the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (as if rebranding will solve the agency’s problems) – for its failure to comply with our nation’s bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), when permitting seismic exploration for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thousands of endangered animals live in the Gulf and are subjected to harassment and injury by seismic exploration in the form of air gun explosions as oil and gas exploration companies search for black gold at the bottom of the Gulf.

BP’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill has led to a thorough examination of how safety and environmental laws and regulations have been enforced (or ignored) with respect to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and on the outer Continental Shelf generally.  Unfortunately, it’s not a pretty picture and uncovering MMS’ record of ignoring basic environmental laws, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, has been disheartening.

The lawsuit we filed yesterday challenges MMS’ practice of approving seismic exploration in the Gulf of Mexico without completing a rigorous environmental review of the activity’s impacts on the environment (including marine mammals) in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  An EIS is so important here because of the real harm to dolphins, whales, and fish that results from seismic exploration.  As NRDC noted even before the current disaster in the Gulf, seismic surveys use some of the loudest underwater sounds generated by humans to explore oil and gas reserves below the ocean floor.  Day and night, for days and months at a time, thousands of square nautical miles of the Gulf are inundated with high-intensity sound pulses – billions of times more intense than noise levels known to compromise basic life functions of marine mammals and fish – such as feeding, breeding, navigating, and communicating.

With impacts so profound, there is no good excuse as to why MMS has not completed an EIS for seismic exploration – it’s doing one for the same activities planned to take place off the Atlantic Coast and the National Marine Fisheries Service says that one is necessary for the Gulf of Mexico.  Knowing that laziness and bowing to the wishes of the oil industry are not legal defenses – at least not yet – how will MMS justify its failure to comply with America’s most fundamental environmental law?

But regardless of why MMS has failed to prepare an EIS, it must do so now so that the public and decision makers will have a better understanding of how seismic exploration continues to harm marine animals that are already struggling to survive in the wake of the BP disaster.  With oil blanketing Gulf shores – destroying wildlife, habitat, fisheries, local economies, and ways of life that have been passed down for generations – shouldn’t we have a full reckoning of the impacts that oil and gas activities have on the environment, measured from the start, before oil is even found (when our government allows explosive noise to inundate Gulf waters, harming whales and endangered fish), to the end, when oil flows from the ocean floor to refineries and eventually into our cars?  I think so, and hope this lawsuit plays a part in ensuring that understanding.

Wildlife Roundup: the Good News

As spring comes to a close, some more reasons to feel a bit optimistic about wildlife conservations both here at home and around the world:

• Some of Ethiopia's most charismatic and rare animals are making a comeback in the Semien National Park.  Ethiopian wolves (probably the most endangered wolf species in the world), the walia ibex, and the gelada baboon have all seen significant population increases in the Park, according to a recent survey.  (Hat tip: Green Fudge.)
• Scientists at southern Texas’ Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge were recently thrilled to document a female ocelot with two kittens. According to officials, this is the first female ocelot in the Refuge known to have two kittens in a decade.  It brings the total number of cats protected by the refuge to thirteen, out of around fifty thought to live in the state.
• Last January we brought you the hopeful news that 35 of the 69 crocodiles held at Cambodia's Phnom Tamao Wildlife Rescue Center were purebred Siamese crocodiles, one of the rarest species of crocodiles in the world.  Now, the Los Angeles Times reports that scientists recently discovered a nest with 22 Siamese crocodile eggs in a remote part of Cambodia.  Ten of the eggs were removed and successfully hatched in captivity.  Another three--which were thought to be unfertilized--hatched in the wild and are being raised by mom.
• Least tern populations in California have made a huge comeback over the last thirty years, reports The Bay Citizen.  From a population once as low as 225 pairs, 7,000 pairs of terns can now be found in California.  Still, the bird’s population has not yet fully recovered.
• Six whooping crane chick have hatched in Wisconsin’s Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. The chicks are part of a long-standing program to help recover the crane, made famous by the its ultralight-guided migrations from Wisconsin to Florida.
• In Alabama, 18 Eastern indigo snakes were released into the Conecuh National Forest as part of a broader effort to reestablish a breeding population in the State.  Currently, the rare snake can only be found in parts of Florida and Georgia.  Eastern indigo snakes are dependant on the South's longleaf pine forest ecosystems. In other Alabama news, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service  announced that it would reclassify the tulotoma snail, which can be found in the Coosa and Alabama rivers, from an “endangered” to a “threatened” species. Snail populations have rebounded and six new populations have been discovered.
• In Ohio, Lake Erie watersnakes populations have incresed ten-fold in recent years, and now number over 12,000.  As a result, the federal government will likely move to declare the snake recovered.
• Also in the Midwest, the Wisconsin State Journal reports that black bears have made a comeback in the Badger State and are now showing up in sufficient numbers that the State’s Department of Natural Resources “now believe southern Wisconsin is home to its own population of black bears for the first time since the late 1800s.” (hat tip: Coyotes, Wolves, and Cougars…forever!)
• Efforts to restore the American chestnut tree, once one of the foundation species of much of East Coast’s deciduous forests have made progress, reports The Capital (Annapolis).  Hybrid, blight resistant, trees that are largely American chestnut are being planted in experimental plantations in Virginia and scientists are trying to develop a naturally spreading vaccine for blister rust.
• In the Galapagos Islands, a new survey has revealed giant tortoise populations at a healthy 1,500 – 2,000 individuals.  That’s a far cry from the 15 or so tortoises that remained on the Islands in the 1970’s, a result of overgrazing by feral goats.  Removal of the goats, coupled with a captive breeding program, has led to a recovery of the species.  (Hat tip: Yale Environment 360)

Pebble Mine: A Very Large Mine In a Very Bad Place

Last week I travelled to Tokyo to deliver 98,600 petitions to Mitsubishi Corporation, a significant partner in the disastrous Pebble Mine project.  What I heard from Mitsubishi, as we hear frequently these days from the project’s main architect Anglo American, was a request to “wait and see” – that there is no mine plan and that there will be no mine if the residents of the Bristol Bay region don’t want one.

Putting aside the Pebble Partnership’s premise of the moment that it’s only reckless speculation to think they’re planning a massive open pit mine at Pebble – at least no plan worth worrying about – there can be no question that this would be a very large mine in a very bad place:

(1)   We know that, according to latest estimates, Pebble Mine will generate some 10 billion tons of waste, laced w toxic byproducts of the mining process.

(2)   We know that it will be located at the head of the pristine watershed that feeds Bristol Bay, near the largest fresh water lake in all of Alaska.

(3)   We know that the Bristol Bay watershed sustains one of the most productive fisheries in the world – Alaska’s wild salmon fishery -- and that the fishery generates over $400 million each year.

(4)   We know that large mines leak – during or after their operation – and that copper, in even minute increases above natural levels (several parts per billion), is toxic to salmon.

(5)   We know that everything in the watershed depends on the health of the salmon – the people, the communities, and the wildlife. 

(6)   We know that the project is overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of the region, with latest surveys indicating over 80 percent opposition in the Bristol Bay and Lake Peninsula Boroughs.

We know, in short, that this project, because of its size and its location, would pose an unavoidable risk to the entire region and that the people who live there don’t want to run that risk.

What we already know is more than enough reason to worry.  And it’s enough to reject the Pebble Partnership’s basic premise that they can build, operate, and maintain a mine safely at this location -- no matter how confident their assurances or how much profit their shareholders hope to make. 

Some risks just aren’t worth taking, and the Pebble Mine is one of them.   

http://www.savebiogems.org/bristolbay/pebble/

Whale Protections Remain Intact at International Meeting

AGADIR, MOROCCO (June 23, 2010) -- In a move welcomed by conservationists and pro-whale countries around the world, the International Whaling Commission today announced that it would postpone a compromise proposal that would have legalized commercial whaling. This move is a dramatic turnaround from years of secret, closed-door negotiations that led to the compromise proposal -- a proposal that would have sacrificed the quarter-century old ban on commercial whaling in an attempt to rein in Japan, Iceland and Norway’s annual killings.

NRDC believes the whaling moratorium to be one of the 20th century’s most iconic conservation victories. It has saved hundreds of thousands of whales since it took effect in 1986. 

The Commission left the agenda item open, so the compromise proposal could be revisited later this week. It is more likely that the Commission will postpone any further discussions of a compromise until its next plenary meeting.

Following is a statement from Taryn Kiekow, staff attorney with NRDC’s marine mammal protection program:

“I’m cautiously optimistic. If the pro-whaling compromise is indeed off the table, that will be a huge victory for the whales against terrific odds. The Commission tasked with protecting these mammals has shown great leadership by refusing to adopt a proposal that could have led to the extinction of some already endangered and threatened species.”

“Still, it is not enough that the decision is delayed. The International Whaling Commission must reaffirm its dedication to the preservation and protection of whales around the world. Now is the time to push for the conservation of whales -- without trading away the moratorium. Every day marine mammals face new attacks from entanglement, ship strikes, and pollution. It was reckless for the Commission to even consider sanctioning their slaughter at this time.”

“What’s being called a ‘compromise’ wasn’t one at all -- it was a capitulation to pro-whaling interests at the expense of the whales. It would have legalized commercial whaling without seeking any end to it. Legitimizing commercial whaling would have rewarded Japan, Norway, and Iceland -- which have continued to kill tens of thousands of whales despite the moratorium -- for their years of flagrant defiance of international law.”

Background

Japan, Iceland and Norway have killed roughly 35,000 whales since the moratorium was introduced in 1986. In Japan’s case, the killings have been justified under the guise of “scientific research.” Prior to the 1986 whaling moratorium, roughly 38,000 whales were killed annually (between 1945 and 1986), compared with an average of 1,240 whales killed per year after the moratorium (1987 onwards).

For more on the IWC, read Taryn Kiekow's blog from Morocco:
Good News for the Whales - IWC Delays Whaling "Compromise"

Tar sands leave us aghast and committed to clean energy path

NRDC leadership returned late last week from the tar sands struck anew by the urgency of ending our addiction to fossil fuels and building a clean energy economy. What we all saw and smelt was that tar sands are as dirty as they sound.  We could save far more oil than tar sands expansion will produce, and create American jobs, by just switching over homes and businesses that use oil to cleaner fuels, and giving incentives to people who buy hybrid and plug-in hybrids cars.

We had spent several days in northern Alberta, Canada seeing with our own eyes the destructive tar sands strip mines and drilling sites and the beautiful but imperiled Peace-Athabasca Delta. I introduced the trip in an earlier blog and I also detailed the stress that the Peace-Athabasca Delta is under.

My colleague Liz Barratt-Brown told of our first day in the oil “war zone” that is the heart of tar sands extraction in northern Alberta and her continuing impressions as we travelled to Ft. Chipewyan and heard of the community’s struggle to make sense of their failing health and livelihoods.  

NRDC Board member Adam Albright said that he doesn’t usually blog, but was one of the first to send his impressions so strong was the urge to make sure others learned about the tar sands. Marianne Welch, an NRDC Global Leadership Council member who has worked for years on the heart-wrenching issue of Mountain Top Removal came away from the trip deeply discouraged by what she had witnessed and the many similarities to the devastation and suffering in Appalachia.

We heard from the residents of a town downstream from the Canadian tar sands mines have seen a 30% increase in cancer. Scientists have suggested a link to oil-related pollutants. In the U.S., the oil companies want to build yet another tar sands pipeline all the way from Canada to the Gulf and further feeding our addiction.  But we don’t have to travel down that path. We can cut our oil consumption by more than proposed tar sands expansion and create American jobs by requiring American car makers to build cars with double the gas mileage of our current gas-guzzlers and by transitioning responsibly to safe, clean fuels that will not run out like wind and solar.

NRDC executive director Peter Lehner concluded that the solution was to move off of our dependence on fossil fuels and into a clean energy future. This trip made us know that this move beyond oil is more urgent than ever.