Teaching About the Environment: Where is the Urgency in Education About the Climate Crisis?

Changing the Climate in School

Posted: 04/17/2012  Bill Bigelow and Bill McKibben

Maybe you’ve heard. We are facing a climate crisis that threatens life on our planet. Climate scientists are unequivocal: We are changing the world in deep, measurable, dangerous ways — and the pace of this change will accelerate dramatically in the decades to come.

Then again, if you’ve been a middle school or high school student recently, you may not know this.

That’s because the gap between our climate emergency and the attention paid to climate change in the school curriculum is immense. Individual teachers around the country are doing outstanding work, but the educational establishment is not. Look at our textbooks. The widely used Pearson/Prentice Hall text, Physical Science: Concepts in Action, waits until page 782 to tell high school students about climate change, but then only in four oh-by-the-way paragraphs. A photo of a bustling city includes the caption: “Carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, and other sources may contribute to global warming.” Or they may not, the book seems to suggest.

IAT’s Coordinated Science: Physical, Earth and Space Science devotes several pages late in the book to climate change, and concludes with this doubt-soaked passage:

Some people take the position that the increase in carbon dioxide should be reversed. They believe this is necessary even though the size of the contribution to global warming is not certain. It is their belief that the consequences would be very difficult to handle. Other people take a different position. They consider that it would be unwise to disrupt the world’s present economy. They consider the future danger to be questionable. The big problem is that no one is certain that rapid global warming will take place. If it does, it may be too late to do anything about it!

The danger of climate change as “questionable”? ExxonMobil itself could not have produced a more skeptical approach.

These textbooks are not mere egregious outliers; they are typical of commercially produced science and social studies teaching materials. In fact, a partnership between the American Coal Foundation and Scholastic to create a propagandistic 4th grade curriculum was ended only last year, when educators and environmentalists exposed the lessons’ absurd pro-industry biases. Scholastic’s curriculum, The United States of Energy, was distributed free to tens of thousands of elementary teachers. It showed gleaming piles of coal, along with many of its alleged benefits. Students didn’t learn of a single problem, including coal’s huge contribution to climate change.

But as state legislatures get into the business of writing school curricula, things may go from awful to worse. Take Tennessee. It just became the fourth state — following Louisiana, Texas, and South Dakota — to pass a law that requires global warming to be taught as one of a number of “scientific controversies.”

The fact that Tennessee is home of the infamous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial makes the new law ironic, but not funny. As the American Association for the Advancement of Science explains, “Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them.”

Republicans Willing to Pollute U.S. Water Supply to Harvest Natural Gas

Environmentalists expose gas and oil companies use of a technique called fracking, hydraulic fracking or hydrofracking.

Three House Democrats have published a report exposing its use and danger.

Republican Tea Party favorite Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, recently in speaking to the right-wing CPAC conference in Washington D.C., said  “…treat domestic energy production as the economic necessity it is and the job creator it can be. Drill, and frack, and lease, and license, unleash in every way the jobs potential in the enormous energy resources we have been denying ourselves.”

To better understand fracking, hydraulic fracking, and hydrofracking go to:

What is Hydraulic Fracturing?

Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says

By IAN URBINA April 16, 2011 NYTimes

WASHINGTON — Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats.

The chemicals were used by companies during a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock formations deep underground. The process, which is being used to tap into large reserves of natural gas around the country, opens fissures in the rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas.

Hydrofracking has attracted increased scrutiny from lawmakers and environmentalists in part because of fears that the chemicals used during the process can contaminate underground sources of drinking water.

“Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids,” said the report, which was written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The report, released late Saturday, also faulted companies for at times “injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.”

The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of the nation’s most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed as hazardous air pollutants, the report said.

A request for comment from the American Petroleum Institute about the report received no reply.

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

Scott Walker’s Mentor, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, on the Environment: Frack the Earth

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is a new presidential hopeful among Tea Partiers for 2012.

Here is a sample from a speech in February (See full speech at: A Must Read: Indiana Governor and Presidential Hopeful Compares Budget Issues to “Red Menace” and the Cold War) on the issue of energy and the environment.

Basically he’s saying let’s hand over the environment to the Koch brothers and other oil companies from Appalachia to the Rockies. “…treat domestic energy production as the economic necessity it is and the job creator it can be. Drill, and frack, and lease, and license, unleash in every way the jobs potential in the enormous energy resources we have been denying ourselves.”

What is fracking for natural gas?

To See a visual explanation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) go to:

What is Hydraulic Fracturing?

Following is list of valuable articles from ProPublica on the “fracking debate.”

1st Posted in ProPublica, Feb. 28, 2011

Top of Form

It’s been a busy couple of weeks in the fracking and natural gas drilling debate, with the documentary film Gasland [1] nominated for an Academy Award and a front-page story [2] in Sunday’s New York Times on the dangers posed by the technology.

The Times story underscored the findings of dozens of reports that ProPublica has published over the past three years, adding new details from previously undisclosed government documents. The increasing public interest in the possible dangers of gas drilling comes as the world’s energy companies are placing a multi-billion dollar bet on its potential. At the request of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress exempted gas drilling from federal regulation in 2005. Since then, industry officials have successfully lobbied against calls in Washington to change the law, calls that have intensified in recent months with new attention on the issue.

For those who want to dive deeper into the complex science and regulatory issues of fracking, we offer a quick breakdown of the key issues.

It’s a subject reporter Abrahm Lustgarten has been covering for ProPublica since July of 2008. In the years since then, Lustgarten and his ProPublica colleagues have criss-crossed the country, interviewing drillers, industry officials and residents from Wyoming to Colorado to Pennsylvania. To listen to a podcast from Lustgarten, click here [3]. To read a detailed account of one man’s fight against water contamination in Wyoming, click here [4]. (Lustgarten received the 2009 George Polk Award for environmental reporting for his investigation of hydraulic fracturing as well as the 2009 Stokes Award for Best Energy Writing from the National Press Foundation.)

Below is a list of 19 of our most important stories, arranged by topic so you can quickly find the information you need. For a list of all the 100 or so stories we’ve written about gas drilling since 2008, you can also visit our gas drilling home page [5].

Radioactivity

• Is Marcellus Shale Too Hot to Handle? [6] – A 2009 analysis of wastewater samples from wells in New York showed levels of radioactivity more than 250 times the federal drinking water standard.

Wastewater

• With Natural Gas Drilling Boom, Pennsylvania Faces an Onslaught of Wastewater [7] – As gas drilling expanded in 2008 and 2009, Pennsylvania regulators were unprepared for a wave of contaminated wastewater.
• Drilling Wastewater Disposal Options in N.Y. Report Have Problems of Their Own [8] – This December 2009 investigation showed that none of the disposal options laid out in a state report on gas drilling was realistic.

Methane Contamination

• Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling [9] – As new drilling expanded across the country, cases proliferated of natural gas leaking into water wells.
• Water Problems From Drilling More Frequent Than Pa. Thought [10] – Methane related to the natural gas industry has contaminated water wells in at least seven Pennsylvania counties since 2004.

Overview

• Buried Secrets: Is Natural Gas Drilling Endangering U.S. Water Supplies? [11] – A 2008 investigation found more than 1,000 cases of water contamination in drilling areas around the country.
• New York’s Gas Rush Poses Environmental Threat [12] – As state legislators looked to fast-track gas drilling permits in 2008, this investigation revealed environmental harm from drilling in other states and looked at how drilling might affect New York’s waters.
• What We Don’t Know [13] – A look at the basics of hydraulic fracturing and gas drilling from December 2009.
• How the West’s Energy Boom Could Threaten Drinking Water for 1 in 12 Americans [14] – An examination of the threats posed by oil and gas drilling in the Colorado River Basin.

Regulation

• State Oil and Gas Regulators Spread Too Thin [15] – As gas drilling expanded across the country, state agencies failed to keep pace by hiring more inspectors, leaving some wells uninspected for years.
• Underused Drilling Practices Could Avoid Pollution [16] – Innovative industry solutions that would use less water and reduce air pollution have not played a prominent role in the national debate over how to drill safely.
• In New Gas Wells More Chemicals Remain Underground [17] – A December 2009 investigation showed that despite previous reports, as much as 80 percent of hydraulic fracturing fluids can remain underground.
• Energy Industry Sways Congress With Misleading Data [18] – As the industry tried to pre-empt stronger federal regulation, it used arguments that were undercut by its own data and reports.

Air Pollution

• Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated [19] – New emissions estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency cast doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.

Walker “Open for Business” with Green Out the Door

Businesses expect friendlier DNR under Walker

By Eric Decker , of BizTimes Published November 26, 2010

Business interests are hopeful that Governor-elect Scott Walker will make changes to the state’s environmental policies that will make Wisconsin more business-friendly.

The Walker administration is likely to pursue several changes to Wisconsin’s environmental policies as they relate to manufacturing and business, and it will almost certainly make changes to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), political observers say.

Such changes would reflect Walker’s mantra that Wisconsin is “open for business.”

“The main thing is changing the tone in our regulatory agencies from an adversarial relationship to a partnering relationship,” said Steve Baas, director of governmental affairs with the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC). “Businesses should not be assumed guilty until proven innocent in regulatory matters.”

The MMAC and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) hope Walker will put a high priority on changing the culture at the DNR because of the regulatory powers that agency has over manufacturing, which is one of the state’s largest employment sectors.

“The DNR must not view environmental protection and economic growth as mutually exclusive goals,” Baas said. “More than any individual piece of legislation, making a change in tone (at the DNR) will set the table for whether the governor-elect is able to deliver on his goal of making Wisconsin open for business.”

The MMAC and the WMC also expect the Walker administration to speed up the DNR’s permit approval process.

“Time certainty is a huge thing, as is responsiveness,” Baas said. “It speaks to our competitiveness. (Currently) our regulators, without explicitly rejecting an application, can kill one by tying it up in red tape so that businesses will say it’s not worth doing business in Wisconsin.”

Scott Manley, environmental policy director with the WMC, agreed and said the Walker administration should focus on making sure Wisconsin’s policies match up with federal standards and those in place in neighboring states.

“If we can align ourselves with neighboring states and the EPA and get some streamlining done without sacrificing environmental quality (that will be a good thing),” Manley said. “Permit streamlining is a great place to start. They should look at air permitting and water permitting.”

The new Walker administration may not need to introduce radical rule changes at the DNR and other state agencies, Manley said. Instead, it could encourage use of existing rules that are not being enforced now.

“(Wisconsin) enacted some comprehensive regulation reform in 2004, and I think many of those reforms haven’t been fully implemented,” Manley said. “Many of the tools that were given to the DNR to streamline (the permit) process haven’t been fully taken advantage of. In many respects, Walker’s administration has the ability to take those tools and make the regulatory process better and more efficient in Wisconsin.”

Walker will be able to appoint a new DNR secretary when he takes office in January. Next year, the new governor also will be able to appoint two new members to the state’s Natural Resources Board, which sets policy for the DNR.

“Even though the majority of the board won’t be his appointees right away, via the secretary position, the governor can set the tone and make significant changes to the board,” Baas said. “The accountability (of the Natural Resources Board and DNR) and the ability to make changes in the way they do business lands in the governor’s lap.”

State Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), who is also the new Assembly Republican leader, said Assembly Republicans also will put a high priority on changing the culture at the DNR.

“We’ve seen the DNR as an adversary of businesses in the state, and that’s something the Walker administration and Republicans in charge would like to see changed,” Fitzgerald said. “(We need to) get a (DNR) secretary that understands jobs and the economy and will do what it takes to get businesses in Wisconsin.”

Fitzgerald predicts that the Walker administration and Republicans in the state Assembly will work on job-creating and state deficit reducing measures, beginning in January. The Assembly may take up issues relating to emissions permitting and other environmental regulations, he said, but there are no specific pieces of legislation he or other Republicans are planning to introduce at this point.

“The first half (of the session) will be devoted to getting people back to work and our state on fiscal track, which will help the overall business environment,” Fitzgerald said.