Friday, June 15, 2012


Over the years local conservation organizations, the State of Pennsylvania, and Chester County have spent millions of dollars protecting our watersheds to preserve the integrity of our drinking water for our health and safety. As noble as that sounds, protecting our watersheds constantly faced serious opposition from developers that wanted to build housing developments, corporate centers, and shopping malls. The small victories achieved makes Chester County stand above many others for quality of life thanks to those brutal battles.
 Now Downingtown faces another serious threat to its water quality. Just 0.8 miles upstream from where the Downingtown Municipal Water Authority pipes water from the east branch of the Brandywine Creek to supply us with clean drinking and bathing water, the Williams Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company (Transco) wants to replace an old 2,200-foot section of pipe with a larger diameter pipe across the Brandywine and two crossings on Ludwig’s Run, a tributary, to improve their ability to monitor the pipe’s safety.
What’s wrong with that, you might ask? Well, there are two ways to do the job; the right way that protects the water quality (called horizontal drilling) and the wrong way (the open cut/cofferdam method) that could jeopardize our water quality. An additional problem of concern is the obstinate resistance Transco has shown in considering doing it the right way.
 The environmentally sensitive method, horizontal drilling, consists of drilling a hole straight down on the west bank of the creek, tunneling well under the stream bed, coming straight up on the east bank  with a U- shaped pipe, not disturbing the creek at all.
The wrong way, open cut, basically cuts across the stream disrupting the natural ecology of the stream bottom and increases the opportunity for serious soil erosion into our water supply from vegetation removal and disturbance to the stream banks.  Open cut is the cheap way and once they’re finished, they’ll leave us to deal with, and pay for, any problems left behind. 
In 2009 DEP denied an open cut permit to Transco. So what has changed? The worry now is that DEP is now directed by the Corbett Administration who is trashing environmental regulations while showing strong allegiance to the gas, oil and coal industries. The community has every right to expect and demand that DEP do its job again and deny the open cut method.
Part of the frustration was that DEP published a notice in the April 28th (a Saturday) issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin but there was no indication from the DEP during the comment period as to whether it was going to take the additional step of convening a public meeting/hearing on the applications involved. Once the public notice was discovered ten days into the original 30 day deadline, Representative Curt Schroder notified Lynda Farrell, one of the landowners, who in turn notified Senator Andy Dinniman. Senator Dinniman quickly called a meeting at the Brandywine Conservancy on May 15. Transco did a presentation to the heads of Chester County’s major conservation organizations, county officials, municipal officials, and environmental groups.   Conspicuously missing from this meeting was anyone from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Also conspicuously missing was vital technical information from Transco’s permit application.  
After the May 15th meeting, Senator Dinniman, Senator Rafferty, Pete Goodman from Trout Unlimited and many other attendees submitted a total of 17 letters to DEP requesting a public hearing and a new 30 day public comment period before any permits are approved.  Had the May 15th meeting not happened, it most likely would have been too late to request a public hearing. In response to the 17 letters, DEP said they will grant a hearing and 30 day comment period and they promised it would happen in July. As of this writing, a date has not been confirmed.
An incredible irony with this issue is that many very outspoken political factions attack environmental protection regulations as a government takeover; we hear that all the time. Where are these property rights proponents when big corporations violate individual property rights and try to skirt public hearings to avoid having to use the responsible method of drilling that would protect our public drinking water?
Not only are 10,000 residents’ safe drinking water and the millions of dollars already spent to protect our water quality at stake, Victory Brewery who arguably makes some of the finest beer on the planet, relies totally on East Brandywine Creek water for its livelihood and the quality of its beer. Victory supplies 29 states and the United Kingdom. If this pipeline crossing isn’t done right, all of this could “go down the drain”.
 Senator Andy Dinniman coined it correctly when he called it, “the Second Battle of the Brandywine”.  If you care about your drinking water, stay tuned and come to a public comment session when they’re announced and demand the horizontal drilling method. 

Thursday, May 31, 2012

MY TESTIMONY AT THE EPA


May, 24, 2012
EPA Docket Center
Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC, 20460. 
Reference: Public hearings on proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants.
I’m sure you know that CO2 levels are now at 396.18 parts per million (PPM) according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That’s over 116 PPM higher than any time in the last 800,000 years during which it hovered around 280 PPM. That increase happened in roughly the last 120 years.
We know beyond any doubt that this rapid increase is due to humans burning fossil fuels. We are also seeing the effects of this level of CO2 in frequent and severe storms in some areas and more prolonged severe droughts in others. These events are causing billions of dollars in property and business losses and displacing millions of people globally. It will, in the near future, cause catastrophic disruption to water supplies, agriculture production, and food availability to millions of people on several continents leading to famine and wars.
Due to this, and given no matter how you burn oil, gas, wood or coal, it’s end product is CO2 that further exacerbates the problem. That’s why this proposal for a carbon pollution standard for new power plants won’t work. 
 At this writing there is no known technology that can “reduce” CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels or to sequester it. That’s a pipe dream. Our only option is to stop burning it. Shift the oil company subsidies to non-carbon based energy technology as soon as possible and get that technology moving.
Much of the delay is caused from the politicization of climate change by anti-science campaigns well funded by the fossil fuel industry and orchestrated by “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, to name a few. With the overwhelming peer-reviewed science that supports the fact that climate change is real, dangerous, and urgent, how did the government let hearsay triumph science?
The United States Government has squandered precious time by not taking this problem serious enough years ago when we could have lessened the impacts of climate change by keeping CO2 levels lower. What’s even worse, the United States’ leadership on the world stage has been abysmal causing critical delays in worldwide cooperation.
The Administration needs to get some backbone, shut the climate deniers up, and get us off of fossil fuels now. For the sake of the continuation of the human race why in the name of God aren’t you doing this?
Richard Whiteford – The Climate Reality Project
908 Covington Drive
Downingtown, PA 19335   610-246-7974 - Savebisophere3@verizon.net

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Heartland Institute lies about climate science and gets caught

An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute

As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.
We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said. Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.
So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.
We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.
These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of SciencesUnited States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.
Here’s the rest of the letter and the signatories:
What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations. While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.
We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.
  • Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts
  • David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
  • Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
  • Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
  • Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
  • Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
  • Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Thursday, February 16, 2012

CO2 Levels Highest Jump in Recent History

CO2 emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010 according to the Global Carbon Project, an international group of scientist that track the numbers. A half million more tons of CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in 2010 which is the largest percentage jump since 2003.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Over 5.5 million bats in North America have died from White-nose Syndrome

North American Bat Death Toll Exceeds 5.5 Million From White-nose Syndrome
 On the verge of another season of winter hibernating bat surveys, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service biologists and partners estimate that at least
5.7 million to 6.7 million bats have now died from white-nose syndrome.
Biologists expect the disease to continue to spread.

Sunday, January 15, 2012