Latest Jobs Posts

Brief # 116 Environment Policy

Title: The sobering reality of a post-carbon world starts with lithium

By Todd Broadman

May 17. 2021

POLICY

The Biden Administration has recognized what previous administrations have not: that carbon-based energy has been destroying our planet and must stop, that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to net zero by 2050. Recognition is a major step forward. Government action to replace our fossil fuel economy with renewables is a colossal task and one that Biden aims to tackle.

What we know is that carbon-free energy is actually more mineral intensive than its oil-based counterpart. There are some 35 rare earth minerals that are key components to making the transition from fossil-fuels to clean energy. Lithium has recently garnered much attention for its essential role in the production of lithium-ion batteries that power our next generation of EV cars. (Other essential minerals include aluminum, cobalt, copper, and nickel).

As part of Biden’s 2.25 trillion-dollar American Jobs Plan (AJP), $174 billion-dollars is earmarked to address this mineral requirement – though indirectly through subsidies to the EV industry. It is wrapped in “mobilizing the country to meet the great challenges of our time: the climate crisis and the ambitions of an autocratic China.” And as its title suggests, millions of jobs are to be created along the new EV supply chain. The AJP also calls for $35 billion in related research and development investments that “address the climate crisis.”

The Plan is also framed as an industrial “race” against China. Specifically, a competition for dependable, self-reliant supply chain from sourcing of the necessary raw minerals like lithium to the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries, and finally the automobiles themselves. U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stated that, “the supply chains for critical materials like lithium and cobalt will determine whether we win or lose.”

Currently, 55% of lithium is sourced in Australia, and most of the remaining sources are in Latin America. With more than 50 lithium-ion “megafactories” in operation and another 60 or so planned, China controls the vast majority of lithium processing. Granholm underscored the importance of funding Biden’s Plan and national self-reliance: “[China] wants to be the go-to place for the guts of the batteries, yet we have these minerals in the United States. We have not taken advantage of them, to mine them.”

At 29 percent of total CO2 emissions, transportation is the single largest contributor, and what guides Biden’s EV policy.( In consideration is a 33% tax credit for anybody buying an electric car – up to $10,000. )A further 25 percent of CO2 comes from electricity generation and 23 percent comes from industrial use.

Consequently, demand for lithium is expected to grow 70 times over the next couple decades. But the supply from existing lithium mines and projects under construction can only meet about half the projected demand this decade. According to Fatih Birol, the executive director of the IEA International Energy Agency (IEA), “This [supply/demand] mismatch is something that worries us … our numbers show that the critical minerals are not a sideshow in our journey to reach climate goals. It’s a part of the main event.”

U.S.-based lithium and other mining interests are pressing the administration to accelerate domestic production and want lawmakers to insert a $10 billion grant program into Mr. Biden’s infrastructure bill, arguing that it is a matter of national security. These efforts are balanced by environmentalists, tribes and local groups who are taking legal action to block lithium mining development.

ANALYSIS

Of America’s 270 million inventory of cars, just 2 million are currently of the carbon-free EV variety. What we do know is that oil-based gasoline has 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery utilized in electric cars. This disparity was factored into a recent University of California, Berkeley model which concludes that by 2050, with an EV transition, the U.S. will need almost 90% more electricity than it did in 2018. Their study looked at what it would take to make the power grid 90% carbon-free by 2035.

The administration must also be able to address environmental impacts of lithium mining and processing. The mining of metals continues to be the leading industrial polluter in the United States. A standard lithium mining practice is to mix the clay dug out from the mountainside with tons of sulfuric acid creating millions of cubic yards of mining waste that must be treated. Lithium processing requires an immense amount of water: 500,000 gallons of water per ton of lithium extracted.

Even if ways can be found to minimize environmental damage of lithium mining, there is the issue of lithium supply. One study found that in a 100% renewable energy future, demand for lithium could reach 280% of known deposits – deposits that are economically feasible to extract. A single EV manufacturer, Tesla, has a goal of selling 20 million vehicles a year by 2030. This volume alone would require more than three times the current total global lithium supply. To meet the projected demand from all auto manufacturers worldwide, our supply of lithium would need to grow six times.

Adding to this ambitious transition ahead, is the need for convenient, ubiquitous lithium-ion battery charging stations. In the AJP, Biden proposes $15 billion to begin rolling out electric vehicle charging stations, with the goal of reaching 500,000 charging stations nationwide by 2030. The American Energy Alliance reports that 500,000 charging stations “wouldn’t even amount to half of what is needed in California alone.” And we haven’t begun to practically address the electrification of larger trucks and buses.

Lithium and other essential minerals will play a crucial role on the road to decarbonization. The level of sacrifice ahead and scale of mobilization required by the American public is unprecedented, even through the historical lens of a Civil War, Great Depression, and couple of World Wars. If the country cannot be united in this effort, more will be lost than Biden’s second term in office.

Engagement Resources:

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/ University of California, Berkeley School of Public Policy: a graduate school that prepares students for careers in public leadership.

https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/ a not-for-profit organization that engages in grassroots public policy advocacy and debate concerning energy and environmental policies.

https://www.iea.org/ The IEA is at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative analysis, data, policy recommendations, and real-world solutions to help countries provide secure and sustainable energy for all.

https://www.eenews.net/ E&E News reports on energy and environment issues for professionals. It is staffed by a dedicated reporting team within the POLITICO newsroom.

Forever Chemicals May Not Last That Long

Shannon Q. Elliott

Thursday, May 10, 2021

“But I suspect most people across the United States are still unfamiliar with PFAS and don’ t realize the exposure that occurs. I’m going to continue doing what I can elevating that awareness.”- Robert Bilott

Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) and Perfluorooctanoic (PFOS), are not only impossible to pronounce, they are toxic chemicals that wreak havoc on all living and breathing beings.  According to Scientific American, of the more than 9,000 known PFAS compounds, 600 are currently used in the U.S.

The chemicals are referred to as “forever chemicals”  because the bonds that bind them into compounds fail to decompose. Overtime they build up in organ systems, causing cancer, autoimmune disorders, and unexplained deformities. Teflon, non-stick, BPA, insulation, perfumes, certain carpets, plastic shower curtains are all examples of products we have been exposed to at one point or another that are potentially loaded with PFAS/PFOS. The Environmental Working

Group lists a brief report on PFAS here and reports that 99% of Americans have PFAS/PFOS chemicals manifesting in their blood streams. If that statistic isn’t alarming enough, The EPA has been unconcerned regulating how industries dispose of the discharge of PFAS/PFOS.

They have failed to address or suggest a federal standard for dumping via the Clean Water Act (CWA) or The Clean Air Act (CAA), until now. Corporations, DuPont and 3M are responsible for the introduction of Teflon into the mass markets. Teflon possesses a man-made chemical called Perfluorooctanoic Acid (C8), which is linked to testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Its reign began in the 1940s when it was was marketed to the American family as an innovative way to prepare family meals; the cookware was a must have with its long lifespan and easy maintenance. It was alleged that the chemical companies were aware of the effects of c8, and intentionally disposed of them via local waterways, which in turn heavily contaminated natural resources.

Robert Bilott, the infamous lawyer who became DuPont’s arch-nemesis began investigating the corporation in 1999. In a visit to Parkersburg, West Virginia; he met with Wilbur Tennant, a farmer whose land had been polluted by DuPont. The sudden death of livestock, and family health issues on the farm, began to shape what would become a class action law suit against the Delaware based company. In 2017, it was reported that an Ohio court found in favor of the plaintiffs of Leach v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. & Related Cases awarding $671 million-dollars in damages. Tennant v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (1998-2001) was settled for an undisclosed amount.

The EPA got on board a short time after the Dupont court case. The agency issued an advisory on Teflon and Scotchgard; 2/5000 potentially deadly PFAS chemicals. Almost twenty years later in January of 2019, legislation regulating PFAS was introduced to the House of Representatives. The language of the bill directed the EPA to act accordingly and begin to regulate chemicals in groundwater, air, and navigable waters protected under the CWA and CAA. The PFAS Action Act of 2019 was rejected by a then republican ruled senate. The perception was that the 2019 senate class, would prioritize infrastructure over the environment, at the request of ex-president Trump. Outraged at the decision, Peter Defazio (D) Oregon was quoted as stating “The Trump administration is known for encouraging pollution and removing regulations,”.

Presently, The PFAS Action Act of 2021 has been re-introduced by Deb Dingle (D-MI) and Fred Upton (R-MI) and proposes creating a national standard for PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The Act will strictly limit and regulate industry discharge and provide $200 million annually to water treatment facilities and utilities to aid with clean-up. Oddly enough Republicans are coming out of the woodwork to endorse the proposed regulations. Corey Gardner (R-CO), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), and Marco Rubio (R- FL) are supportive of an injunction that would work toward banning these chemicals and protecting their communities from another health crisis.

While the federal government meanders over how to best defend Americans from the effects of PFAS/PFOS; states have managed to adjudicate appropriate laws within their jurisdiction. Bill 1200 In California proposed by Phil Ting (D), would prohibit selling/offering products that contain PFAS/PFOS in the wrapping or packaging. The suggestion is to source plant-based options for packaging, which would limit exposure and aid in the fight against plastics. He hopes that by 2024, manufacturers will need to be transparent in the terminology they use to in the packaging of products. Following their lead is Maine, New York, and Washington who all aim to install similar protections by 2022.

Biden’s Administration adamantly states that regulating these substances is a high priority. It’s an about-face from Trump’s lackadaisical approach to any environmental amendments.  Many environmental and health-related organizations also endorse greater governmental regulation of PFAS/PFOS forever chemicals.

Finally…. a chance for the U.S to breathe, knowing that the current leadership will protect us from a preventable health disaster.

Engagement Resources:

EWG Skin Deep (evaluates toxins in skincare, beauty, food, and cleaning products;

also available as an app)

House, B. T. (2021, April). Jack Rodgers. https://www.courthousenews.com/bill-

targeting-toxic-chemicals-reintroduced-in-house/.

Natrual Resources Defense Council . (2021). https://www.nrdc.org/.

The Environmental Working Group. (2021). https://www.ewg.org/.

The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Biggest Nightmare . (2016).

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-

duponts-worst-nightmare.html.

Policy

In 2012, the U.K.’s Department of Energy and Climate Change published its guidelines regarding new British renewable energy policy. These guidelines encouraged the transition of coal-fired electrical generation plants to biomass or wood pellet burning plants, as a way for utility companies to meet European Union air pollution and renewable energy standards. Burning wood pellets to generate electricity has been touted as a renewable energy source because it requires new trees to be grown, offsetting the carbon released by the burning of the trees that preceded them.

European officials had declared biomass energy as carbon neutral, back in 2009. Along with the U.K, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands have also invested heavily in the transition. Shortly after the guidelines were released, European power companies began looking to the well-established and much less restricted logging industry that exists in the Southeastern United States, to be its primary supplier of pelleted wood. Since then, the wood pellet industry in southeastern states has grown “from almost nothing to 23 mills with capacity to produce more than 10 million metric tons annually for export.”

Many foresters, economists, and environmental policy experts have supported the transition in the E.U., but a growing number of ecologists, conservationists and others have voiced their strong disagreement, pointing to the negative impact the growing industry has had on Southeastern forest ecosystems and surrounding communities, as well as a miscalculation of the new fuel’s climate impact. New EPA Administrator Michael Regan has thus far recommended against designating wood pellets as a source of “clean energy” and a spokeswoman for the EPA has said the agency is not “currently considering adding most wood pellets to its renewable fuel standard.” Doing so would open up doors for the industry to expand even further.

Critics of the new industry have successfully forced the installation of pollution controls at various mills, and the Dutch Parliament even recently banned subsidies for new biomass plants. As well, the European Union is expected to announce sometime this year, new regulations for sourcing wood pellets. Regardless, the industry in the southeastern United States continues to grow, with permits recently filed for a dozen new mills, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center. According to Consuelo Brandeis, a research forester with the United States Forest Service, “about 3 percent of harvested wood from the South goes to pellets,” sourced from a rural “patchwork of mostly privately owned hardwood forests, swamps, farms, small towns and pine trees.”

Analysis

Wood pellets are primarily used to replace coal as a fuel for generating electricity. Seth Ginther, executive director of the United States Industrial Pellet Association, says wood pellets are a “low-cost, low-carbon alternative” to coal and that “wood biomass is lower in sulfur, nitrogen, ash, chlorine, and other chemicals than coal and traditional fossil fuels.” William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist and member of the US Environmental Protection Agency advisory board, admits that “burning wood can result in lower emissions than coal if managed and certified properly and could be used as a “bridge fuel” as solar and wind energy continues to expand.” However, Schlesinger says, “When you cut down existing trees and burn them, you immediately put carbon dioxide in the air. None of the companies can guarantee they can regrow untouched forest to capture the same amount of carbon released. The whole renewable forest industry is kind of a hoax in terms of its benefit as climate mitigation.”

Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton, agrees with Schlesinger, calling it “a critical climate accounting error.” Searchinger says, “Wood is a sucky fuel,” noting that “Wood releases more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal or gas, and a newly planted tree can take decades to reabsorb the carbon dioxide emitted by burning.” This miscalculation also fails to consider the emissions associated with shipping the pellets all the way to Europe. Schlesinger says, “If you burn young trees and regrow them, it might not be too bad. If you venture into older trees or forests that have never been cut before, that can be very bad. … Philosophically it looks good but practically it looks pretty bad in many cases.”

When Enviva, the self-proclaimed world’s largest pellet producer, opened its first mill in Ahoskie, North Carolina, in 2011, the company promised it would source its wood primarily from “wood residues [(or waste wood)], such as treetops, branches and sawdust with no other market.” Jennifer Jenkins, Enviva’s Chief Sustainability Officer, says the company’s sourcing is sustainable because “it buys only from landowners who commit to regrow trees, and because the Southeast’s forests overall are expanding.” Jenkins also argues that “Pellet demand creates an incentive for landowners … to grow more trees, which suck up more carbon, offsetting the carbon dioxide emitted from power plant smokestacks.”

Some forestry experts and economists agree with Jenkins, but many environmental groups, including the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental nonprofit based in Asheville, North Carolina, are less optimistic. Some report that “they have documented truckloads of logs and whole trees, not just leftovers, entering pellet mills.” Derb Carter, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, says, he and colleagues “have tracked some of Enviva’s source material to bottomland forests that have some of the nation’s highest tree biodiversity.” In 2016, the southeastern Atlantic Coastal Plain was declared a “biodiversity hotspot,” recognized for “both its unique plant species and its rate of habitat loss.”

Accusations of Enviva’s bottomland hardwood harvesting concerns Bob Abt, professor of natural resource economics and management at North Carolina State University. Abt says using hardwood trees from bottomlands results in a different carbon calculation” than when using softwoods. He says, “Using these species of trees requires a much longer time to make up for the released carbon, as bottomland hardwoods grow more slowly.” As Gert-Jan Nabuurs, a professor of forest resources at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, calculates, “the Southeast might be able to sustainably supply 35 million metric tons of pellets annually, roughly three times today’s production capacity.” However, as Nabuurs notes, “pellets cannot replace fossil fuels.” He says, “If indeed the whole world starts to ask for pellets, then things go out of control, … That’s very obvious.”

However, Enviva and many private landowners see the challenge as an opportunity. Jenkins is correct that demand for wood pellets incentivizes landowners to grow more trees, but that is not as idyllic as it sounds. One such landowner, Owen Strickler, owns 6,000 acres of woods in Virginia, described by Enviva as a model system for sustainable sourcing. Strickler has planted his acreage into “a mosaic of different-age loblolly pine stands.” In this system, “When one area is harvested, Mr. Strickler sprays the native hardwoods that pop up with herbicide and plants more fast-growing loblollies.” The softwood loblolly pines are useful in that they sequester carbon much faster than native hardwoods, but their cultivation encourages the use of herbicide and discourages the proliferation of native forests. Such a model could prove promising on land already disturbed and open, such as fallow farmland, but if this system requires existing hardwood forest to be clear cut first, it may lose its credit of sustainability.

Francisco X. Aguilar, a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umea, recently led a study measuring the carbon held in forests of the Southeastern United States. He found that the forests in areas surrounding existing pellet mills are holding on to more carbon than other forests further away, but he points out that his data “revealed potentially concerning trends.” Aguilar says his study found “fewer standing dead trees and losses of carbon from the soil of forests near mills in the Southeast, suggesting the pellet industry may be taking wood that otherwise would have decomposed on site, feeding the soil.”

Enviva claims it now only harvests wood from bottomlands “it considers non sensitive and that these provide only 1 percent of its supply.” The company says its sourcing practices now go above and beyond industry standards, and it disputes multiple claims by the Dogwood Alliance that trees are being harvested from sensitive wet bottomlands.

Supporters of the industry commend the much-needed creation of rural jobs, noting that the industry in the southeastern U.S. “employs more than 1,000 people directly, and has boosted local logging and trucking businesses.” Opponents, however, point out that, according to an analysis by the Dogwood Alliance, pellet mills “are 50 percent more likely to be located near “environmental justice-designated” communities, defined as counties with above-average poverty levels and a population that’s at least 25 percent nonwhite.”

Kathy Claiborne, a resident of Garysburg, N.C., one of the state’s poorest counties and largely African American, says, “I can’t even recall the last time I had a good night’s sleep,” due to the noise coming from the nearby pellet mill that arrived in 2013 and runs non-stop. Claiborne also says she wears a mask when she goes outdoors, “because dust from the plant can make it hard to breathe.” Residents located near pellet mills in other parts of the Southeast complain of air pollution and new respiratory illnesses as well.

Lisa Sanchez, a resident of Woodville in East Texas, also home to the large German Pellets manufacturing plant, says she was always in good health until the pellet mill arrived. She says when the mill began operating, “I started having a lot of respiratory problems, I was getting sick all the time,” adding that she wouldn’t open the windows because “the air felt more sooty than fresh.” Sanchez says she is “not anti-industry but believes that regulations need to be tightened.” Additionally, a number of pellet mills have been found to pose a danger to both the environment and humans in more ways than one. “An analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project found that at least eight of the 15 largest US wood pellet facilities have had fires or explosions since 2014, while 21 mills exporting to Europe emit excessive greenhouse gases and pollutants.”

It is accepted by most that if done properly and at a limited scale, the wood pellet industry can act as an effective temporary supplement to other renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar. However, the debate is still out as to the industry’s viability as a sustainable large-scale energy source. At least 500 ecologists, conservationists, and other scientists have written to various heads of state, including President Biden, “urging them to reject wood burning as a tool for fighting climate change.” Perhaps we should heed the words of over 100 of those scientists who wrote in a letter to the governor of North Carolina, “Removing the carbon dioxide emitted from burning trees for electricity requires waiting decades to a century for trees to regrow. Not only are those offsets not verifiable nor enforceable, we cannot afford to wait that long: to stave off the worst effects of climate change, it is imperative that we reduce emissions and increase our forest carbon sinks now.”

Action Resources

The Dogwood Alliance – Dogwood Alliance

• For over 25 years, Dogwood Alliance has worked with diverse communities, partner organizations and decision makers to protect Southern forests across 14 states. They do this through community and grassroots organizing, holding corporations and governments accountable and working to conserve millions of acres of Southern forests.

The National Resources Defense Council – NRDC

• Whether in California or Chicago, India, or Canada, we help protect communities around the world. We combine the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and advocates with the power of more than three million members and online activists to confront our planet’s most pressing problems.

The Southern Environmental Law Center – Southern Environmental Law Center

• The mission of the Southern Environmental Law Center is to protect the basic right to clean air, clean water, and a livable climate; to preserve our region’s natural treasures and rich biodiversity; and to provide a healthy environment for all.

References

Dart, T., & Milman, O. (2018, June 30). The dirty little secret behind ‘clean energy’ wood pellets. Retrieved May 09, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pellets-biomass-environmental-impact

Drouin, R. (2015, January 22). Wood pellets: Green energy or new source of CO2 emissions? Retrieved May 09, 2021, from https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

Popkin, G., & Schaff, E. (2021, April 19). There’s a booming business in America’s forests. Some aren’t happy about it. Retrieved May 09, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/climate/wood-pellet-industry-climate.html

Schlesinger, W., et al. (2017, November 15). Scientist’s Letter to Governor Cooper [Letter written November, 2017 to Governor Roy A. Cooper III]. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Scientist-Letter-to-Governor-Cooper_11-15_2017.pdf