VERNAL, Utah – A coalition of conservation groups plans to sue the Trump administration over plans to construct a commercial oil-shale development in Utah's Uintah Basin.

The groups claim the planned Enefit project would drain billions of gallons of water from the upper Colorado River Basin, threaten endangered species and generate greenhouse-gas pollution.

Taylor McKinnon, senior public-lands campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity, says the administration already has approved the rights-of-way for pipelines and power lines for the massive strip-mining operation.

"This project is a ubiquitously bad idea," McKinnon insists. "It's proposing to pull water out of the Colorado River – at a time when we're facing historic shortages – to develop a high-carbon fuel, in a time when climate change is causing dramatic declines and flows in the Colorado River. "

The coalition claims that permits issued for the project ignore its potential impact on several species of endangered fish. It accuses the federal government of studying only the water depletion necessary to build the pipeline, not to operate it.

According to McKinnon, over the 30-year life of the project, more than 10,000 acre-feet of water would be taken each year from the Green River, which is part of the Colorado's upper basin.

He says previous attempts to develop shale-oil production in the western U.S. have failed, in part because it's an inefficient way to produce energy.

"It requires a tremendous amount of energy to mine, process and then transport that oil," he explains. "The net result is that the energy needed to produce a barrel of oil-shale oil is vastly higher than conventional oil."

McKinnon says the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 60 days to comply with the Endangered Species Act or the coalition will go forward with the suit.

"Our lawsuit says they need to go back and look at the impacts – not just of constructing the pipeline, but actually operating the pipeline and taking all of that water out of the Green River," he adds.

Other groups in the coalition include Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, Living Rivers, Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council.




get more stories like this via email

Hoosiers could get their holiday trees from any of about 200 tree farms in the state, according to the Indiana Christmas Tree Growers Association. But some families choose artificial trees, and each choice comes with environmental consequences.

Delaney Barber, energy and climate manager for the Hoosier Environmental Council, said live trees help store carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but when they are disposed of, that process creates carbon.

"If it's just going into a landfill, it's probably the worst," Barber said. "It's going to degrade down over time because it is biodegradable, but it will release more emissions as it degrades."

One report on the website earth.org claims real Christmas trees have an average carbon footprint of almost eight pounds of carbon dioxide if destroyed in a wood chipper after use. In a landfill, the carbon footprint increases to 35 pounds.

Barber suggested that Hoosiers take their live trees to designated drop-off sites in most cities for recycling, to create mulch or compost.

Artificial trees require minimal maintenance and can last for years. However, Barber explained, they're made from petroleum-based plastics and take hundreds of years to break down in a landfill. Where the tree is made presents more questions.

"Are you getting the fake Christmas tree from a U.S. manufacturer," she said, "or is it coming from overseas? And then, there's more transportation emissions for that."

About 80% of artificial Christmas trees are manufactured in China, with a lifespan of up to 30 years. Some companies are making them out of recycled materials, which helps reduce their carbon footprint.


get more stories like this via email

Bloomington and Indianapolis are getting some international recognition for the work they're doing to help the environment. The two have been named "A List Cities" by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Only 119 cities and counties worldwide got A List designation this year, for "bold leadership on environmental action" and transparency about their plans. The cities are on what's known as the Carbon Disclosure Project Track, making progress to curb carbon emissions.

Director of the Office of Sustainability for the City of Indianapolis, Morgan Mickelson, said one reason for the Indianapolis ranking is its efforts in tree planting.

"Trees are really important to help us lower surface temperature in our neighborhoods, also to help purify air," she explained. "We have a large effort with Keep Indianapolis Beautiful to plant trees, and we work really intentionally with KIB to ensure that we're planting trees in areas that historically have not seen as much investment in terms of tree planting."

Nonprofit Keep Indianapolis Beautiful runs programs that encourage teen and adult involvement, and partners with the city on multiple conservation projects.

Bloomington's Climate Action Plan features many carbon-cutting objectives, including boosting food markets to help grow that city's local food economy and reduce waste.

The Office of Sustainability also administers Thrive Indianapolis, the city's first sustainability and resiliency action plan.

Mickelson said since 2018, more than 31,000 trees have been planted in public spaces -- and that's just a start.

"I also want to caution everyone that the work is not done," she warned. "We're in the climate crisis. I would just encourage everyone to take the time to reflect on all the hard work that is being done, but to also not forget that we have a lot more work ahead."

This is the sixth time Indianapolis has received an 'A' rating.



get more stories like this via email

A Virginia group is working out ways to reforest former mines across Appalachia.

The state has several hundred thousand acres of mine land, which was being handled under the Virginia Department of Energy's Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program. But other groups feel reforesting mine lands can play a role in reducing global carbon levels.

Diana Dombrowski, carbon research fellow at Appalachian Voices, said this is the kind of project the carbon-offset market can invest in.

"They're interested in projects that not only are maybe more local, to where they're based, but also have an environmental justice perspective," Dombrowski explained. "When it comes to the work of reforesting mine land, we're aware of a need in central Appalachia."

The process begins with reclaiming the mine land, which could cost from $7.5 billion to almost $10 billion. But the carbon offset market made $277 billion last year, so it sounds possible. There also are other options available. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides almost $113 billion, appropriated for Virginia's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.

Reforesting former mining areas can help Virginia achieve its climate goals. The projects can add to resilience against storms for communities, and help keep air and soil healthy.

Dombrowski noted other challenges could come up, such as how to identify the best sites for reforesting projects.

"Designing a project that can plan for the most carbon sequestration," Dombrowski suggested. "Where you pick the best land versus a project where you are maybe running over an average, that maybe people will see in the public at large."

Since the work is in the earliest phases, other challenges could arise. Dombrowski pointed out one priority is to focus on environmental justice. She added if any projects turn a profit, the funds will be reinvested into the workforce or materials to keep the work going.