Revolutionary Family Shows True Meaning of Self-Reliance

Cole Mellino  ::  EcoWatch  ::  23 January 2015 

Think you can’t grow much food in an urban area? Think again. One family’s 4,000 square foot farm in Pasadena, California “not only feeds a family but revolutionizes the idea of what can be done in a very unlikely place—the middle of a city.” KCET reporter Val Zavala gives us a glimpse into the Dervaes family’s Path to Freedom Urban Homestead. “I brought the country to the city rather than having to go out to the country,” said Jules Dervaes, who created the farm with his three adult children, Justin, Anais and Jordanne.

This urban homestead produces 6,000 pounds of food a year.

They grow almost all of the food they need. Ninety percent of their all-organic, vegetarian dietcomes from their garden. The operation involves 400 varieties of vegetables, fruits and edible flowers, which is 6,000 pounds of food a year. They raise eight chickens, four ducks and two goats, which provide them with eggs and milk. Chefs from high-end restaurants come directly to their house to buy their excess.

When asked if he had any doubts in the beginning, Jules admits he did. “I kept thinking this place was too small. There’s no way that we are going to be able to feed ourselves, plus I never thought we’d be able to grow the vegetables for the market,” he said. Dervaes decided to embark on this endeavor because he was concerned about what was in his and his children’s food. He wanted them to eat organic, GMO-free food, and he knew the best way to ensure that was to grow it himself.

The Dervaes’ say they love their homesteading lifestyle and couldn’t imagine it any other way.

The family has a solar panel on the roof that provides all of their electricity. Not that they use much. Most of their “gizmos,” says Anais, “are hand-powered” like their hand-crank smoothie maker. That puts their electricity bill at about $12 per month. Their car runs on biodiesel, which they make from vegetable waste that restaurants drop off at their house for free. These people have all the hook ups.

But it’s not all sunshine and flowers (though they have plenty of both). The Dervaes’ work very hard, make roughly $20,000 a year and have to deal with weather-related disasters, pests, disease and now climate change. Justin said, “we’ve been gardening so long that you can sense things are off. We have this little bug, the Junebug, that comes out in June, but now it doesn’t come out until July, August and September—so something is off.” Water is also a serious issue. With the drought in California, Jules has relied on clay pot irrigation, an ancient form of irrigation, to conserve water.

All that hard work is well worth it when the family sits down to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

By growing all of their food themselves, except staples such as wheat, rice and oats, they are able to eat fresh and delicious, organic food for $2 a day per person. They have attracted a lot of attention since they began homesteading in the mid 1980s. Many homesteaders have emulated their model. They offer workshops and events on their farm, and they even have a blog. They are proof of the bounty you can grow on one-tenth of an acre.

Watch here as KCET’s Zavala reports on this revolutionary family:

UK Wind Power Beats Coal and Nukes

Anastasia Pantsios  ::  EcoWatch  ::  September 2, 2014 

Wind energy continues to set new records in the UK.

Wind energy is taking its place as the UK’s new powerhouse, overtaking coal and nuclear as one of the most important resources we have to keep Britain’s lights on. Photo credit: Shutterstock

The UK enjoyed a groundbreaking month in August, blowing past coal-fired energy generation on five separate days, according to Renewable UK, a trade group that promotes renewable-friendly policies in the UK. That’s a first. The group reported that wind overtook coal in providing energy to the grid on Aug. 3, 9, 11, 12 and 17 and generated more energy than nuclear power on Aug. 29.

On Aug 11., wind set a record, providing 21 percent of UK electricity, breaking a record of 20 percent set last December. Although some of that surge was attributable to the aftermath of Hurricane Bertha, it broke that record on Aug. 17 when wind provided 22 percent of the country’s electricity needs, demonstrating that wind is an energy sector that’s getting stronger.

“Wind energy is taking its place as the UK’s new powerhouse, overtaking coal and nuclear as one of the most important resources we have to keep Britain’s lights on,” said RenewableUK’s director of external affairs Jennifer Webber. “It continues to surpass its own records, and these figures prove that can happen at any time of year. As we approach autumn and winter, we can expect wind to maintain this strong performance and provide electricity when demand is especially high.”
Renewable UK also reported that overall, wind provided 10 percent of the country’s energy in August, not far behind the record of 13 percent set this past December.

TransCanada Buys Town’s Silence On Tar Sands Pipeline Proposal For $28K

CREDIT: Shutterstock

by Emily Atkin Posted on July 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm Updated: July 6, 2014 at 4:43 pm

A small town in Ontario, Canada will be receiving $28,200 from energy company TransCanada Corp. in exchange for not commenting on the company’s proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline project, according to an agreement attached to the town council’s meeting agenda on June 23.

Under the terms of deal, the town of Mattawa will “not publicly comment on TransCanada’s operations or business projects” for five years. In exchange for that silence, TransCanada will give Mattawa $28,200, which will ultimately go towards buying a rescue truck for the town.

“This is a gag order,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, a campaigner for energy and climate issues with the Council of Canadians, told Bloomberg News. “These sorts of dirty tricks impede public debate on Energy East, a pipeline that comes with significant risks for communities along the route.”

The terms of the agreement did not specifically mention the controversial Energy East pipeline, which would carry more than a million barrels of tar sands crude oil across Canada each day. However, the deal is being widely seen as a way for the company to avoid obstacles that may get in the way of the pipeline’s approval — especially considering the obstacles that have long plagued the approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States.

The Energy East pipeline, though, is bigger than Keystone XL — in fact, it’s the most expensive pipeline project TransCanada has ever proposed. If approved, Energy East would carry about 1.1 million barrels of tar sands crude across Canada each day. That’s more than Keystone XL, which would carry 830,000 barrels per day from Canada down to refineries in Texas.

Despite the company’s apparent attempt to avoid obstacles, the Energy East pipeline proposal has already gotten some push-back in Canada. A February report from the Pembina Institute, for example, found Energy East would have an even greater impact on the climate than Keystone XL, with the potential to generate 30 to 32 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year. That’s the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to the roads, and more than the 22 million metric tons that the think tank predicts Keystone XL will produce.

Still, representatives from TransCanada insist that the agreement with Mattawa was not intended to avoid or impede public discourse.

“The language in the agreement was designed to prevent municipalities from feeling obligated to make public comments on our behalf about projects that did not impact them and about which they had no experience or knowledge,” TransCanada spokesman Davis Sheremata told Bloomberg. “We are looking at amending our contract language to ensure communities know they and their staff retain the full right to participate in an open and free dialogue about our projects.”

Representatives from Mattawa’s town government have not yet publicly commented on the decision.
As of now, the process for approving the Energy East pipeline is still in its early stages, with TransCanada filing its project description for the pipeline with the National Energy Board in early March. About two-thirds of the Energy East pipeline infrastructure already exists, meaning a major part of the project will be converting that existing line — which currently carries natural gas — into a tar sands crude oil pipeline.

Tar sands oil is controversial because of its unique, thick, gooey makeup. Because of this quality, producers must use what is called “non-conventional” methods of getting the oil out of the ground. Those methods are more carbon-intensive, meaning they emit more greenhouse gases.

Tar sands production also causes a great deal of physical pollution. In Alberta, where the sands are mined, federal scientists have found that the area’s deposits are now surrounded by a nearly 7,500-square-mile ring of mercury.

Scientists Find 7,300-Mile Mercury Contamination ‘Bullseye’ Around Canadian Tar Sands

by Emily Atkin Posted on December 30, 2013 at 1:45 pm

Oilsands development in northern Alberta, Canada.

CREDIT: Shutterstock

Just one week after Al Jazeera discovered that regulatory responsibility for Alberta, Canada’s controversial tar sands would be handed over to a fossil-fuel funded corporation, federal scientists have found that the area’s viscous petroleum deposits are surrounded by a nearly 7,500-square-mile ring of mercury.

Canadian government scientists have found that levels of mercury — a potent neurotoxin which has been found to cause severe birth defects and brain damage — around the region’s vast tar sand operations are up to 16 times higher than regular levels for the region. The findings, presented by Environment Canada researcher Jane Kirk at an international toxicology conference, showed that the 7,500 miles contaminated are “currently impacted by airborne Hg (mercury) emissions originating from oilsands developments.”

The Canadian government touts Alberta’s oil sands as the third-largest proven crude oil reserve in the world, next to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The region’s heavy crude oil is mixed with clay, bitumen, and a good deal of sand — hence the name “oil sands.” This makes for a unique and energy-intensive extraction process that some scientists say produces three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventionally produced oil. Environment Canada has said it expects production emissions from tar sands to hit 104 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020 under current expansion plans.

Giant oil companies across the United States are currently investing in Canada’s tar sands as part of their role in the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Alberta all the way to Texas. The pipeline would double imports of tar sands oil into the United States and transport it to refineries on the Gulf Coast and ports for international export. The oil sands industry itself is undergoing a major expansion, powered by $19 billion a year in investments, according to Bloomberg News.

Mercury pollution is just the latest contamination-related environmental woe to hit the tar sands. In May of this year, leaks of the oil started popping up in Alberta, and haven’t yet stopped. In September, the company responsible for the leaks was ordered to drain a lake so that contamination on the lake’s bottom could be cleaned up. By September 11, the leaks had spilled more than 403,900 gallons — or about 9,617 barrels — of oily bitumen into the surrounding boreal forest and muskeg, the acidic, marshy soil found in the forest.

Environment Canada’s research on the mercury pollution reportedly suggested that tar sands development has created a “bullseye” of contamination, with the highest levels of mercury found in the middle. The research also included indications that the toxin was building up in some of the area’s wildlife, with elevated levels being found in some birds’ eggs. Mercury pollution is particularly disconcerting because of its ability to bioaccumulate, meaning it tends to become more concentrated as it moves up the food chain.

The contamination’s reveal comes just one week after it was revealed that the Alberta government would hand over regulatory responsibility for the province’s tar sands industry to a corporation that’s funded entirely by Canada’s oil, coal and gas industry. The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) said it would take over the duties of the now defunct Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) — which was funded in part by taxpayers — and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.

The shift to the AER as the main environmental regulator in Alberta is part of the provincial government’s plan to streamline the approval process for oil companies. It’s drawn concern from environmentalists in Alberta, who are worried that the AER’s financial backing from the fossil fuel industry makes the group too close to the industry it’s supposed to regulate.

Testimony:  Record 36% of North Dakota Fracked Gas Was Flared in December

Steve Horn  ::  DeSmogBlog / News Report  ::  11 March 2014

"In 2012 alone, flaring resulted in the loss of approximately $1 billion in fuel and the GHG emissions equivalent of adding one million cars to the road," explained Ceres' July 2013 report. According to World Bank data, the U.S. is now one of the top five flarers in the world.

The recent March 6 House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing titled "Benefits of and Challenges to Energy Access in the 21st Century: Fuel Supply and Infrastructure" never had over 100 online viewers watching the livestream at any point in time. And it unfolded in an essentially empty room. 

But the poor attendance record had no relation to the gravity of the facts presented by testifiers. Among other things, one presenter revealed 36 percent of the gas by-product from oil obtained via hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in North Dakota's Bakken Shale basin was flared off as waste during a brutally cold midwest winter with no end in sight.

These damning facts were brought forward by Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres) Oil & Gas and Insurance Programs Director Andrew Logan, one of eight people called to testify around topics ranging from domestic propane markets to fossil fuels-by-rail markets, to pipeline markets and flaring. 

A topic covered previously by DeSmogBlog, Logan submitted to the Subcommittee that flaring "is getting worse, not better."

"Flaring in North Dakota hit 36% in December, a new record," Logan told the subcommittee. "This means that more than 1/3 of all natural gas produced in the state is going up in smoke, at the same time as consumers around the country are seeing price spikes from natural gas in this cold winter, along with actual shortages of propane in many places."

Logan also said that wasteful flaring is also a growing quagmire in Texas, which has seen a 10-fold increase in flaring permits since 2010.

At least one influential Subcommittee member has taken notice.

U.S. Rep. Waxman: Flaring "Wasteful and Unnecessary"

During the question-and-answer portion of the hearing, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) chimed in with his thoughts on flaring, calling for a follow-up hearing to focus exclusively on this issue.

"The wasteful and unnecessary flaring of natural gas is a serious problem and has no place in a modern energy infrastructure. I believe the Subcommittee should a hearing to get the facts regarding flaring and to develop real solutions to the problem," said Waxman.

In an interview with DeSmogBlog, Logan said he believed that a hearing on this issue would go a long way toward tackling the flaring problem. 

"Flaring, at least at the level we are currently seeing in the Bakken, is so obviously indefensible that simply shining a light on the problem should get us well on the way to a solution," said Logan. "That being said, the Republicans obviously control the House — and therefore the subject of hearings at present — and so I don't know how likely it is that we will see hearings anytime soon."

"Wasteful" is an understatement given how much gas is flared off in the Bakken Shale. The amount flared off could heat over half a million homes per day, according to a New York Times investigation. 

"In 2012 alone, flaring resulted in the loss of approximately $1 billion in fuel and the GHG emissions equivalent of adding one million cars to the road," explained Ceres' July 2013 report titled, "Flaring up: North Dakota Natural Gas Flaring More Than Doubles in Two Years." 

According to World Bank data, the U.S. is now one of the top five flarers in the world.

So, what's being wasted? Not just methane gas, but also "rich [and] valuable natural gas liquids like propane and butane [which are] about the last gas you would want to flare," according to Logan's testimony.

The propane is being flared at the same time North and South Dakota face a propane crisis and accompanying price spike.

"In North and South Dakota, the shortage has become so acute that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has opened shelters to serve its population, most of whom rely on propane," explained The New York Times.

Logan says the situation in the Dakotas epitomizes why strong federal regulations are needed. 

"It's outrageous that propane is being flared off as a waste product when Dakotans are shivering in the cold due to artificial propane shortages," he said. "The only real solution is regulation that forces the industry to curtail flaring once and for all."

"Flaring in North Dakota will only be solved when the regulatory structure changes so that flaring is no longer the easiest option. For that to change, the incentive structure needs to change."

Why Flare? Profits

At the hearing, Waxman asked Logan why he thinks companies choose to flare at all. 

"Well, it's really all about the relative economics and also the state of regulation in places like North Dakota. So while it's profitable to capture the gas, it's more profitable to drill the next oil well," Logan testified. "So if you're an oil company with a limited amount of money to spend — as they all are — it's a somewhat rational short-term choice to say, 'Well look, if I don't have to capture that gas, I'd rather spend that money to drill another well.'"

"We think in the long-term that's very short-sighted and a waste of the value of that resource, but you can kind of see why the market is pushing companies in that direction."

This short-term, profit motive was echoed by an oil and gas industry representative in a September 2011 story appearing in The New York Times. 

"I’ll tell you why people flare: It’s cheap," Troy Anderson, lead operator of a North Dakota gas-processing plant owned by Whiting Petroleum told The Times. "Pipelines are expensive: You have to maintain them. You need permits to build them. They are a pain."

It also helps the industry that the head of North Dakota's oil and gas regulatory body — the Department of Mineral Resources — is headed by Lynn Helms, a former employee of industry giants Texaco and Hess. 

"Bakken...not going anywhere"

Logan and the over 100 members managing the more than $11 trillion Ceres represents argue that a time-out is needed to determine how to develop the Bakken more strategically.

"The Bakken formation has been around for 360 million years. It’s not going anywhere. If it takes a little extra time to develop the resource in a thoughtful and deliberate way, it seems to me we should strongly encourage that," said Logan in his concluding remarks to the Subcommittee. 

Fracking’s Toxic Impact on Texans

Written by Kerry Trueman  ::  1 March 2014

The Lone Star State’s ruthless energy industry is leading a toothless government agency in a merciless stomp on the windpipes of rural Texans. Thanks to an eight month-long investigation by the mighty multimedia trio InsideClimate News, the Center for Public Integrity and The Weather Channel, we now know that a massive but relatively obscure (until now) fracking operation to extract oil and gas from the Eagle Ford Shale is spewing an alarming cocktail of contaminants into the air and the lungs of rural Texans while government agencies stand idly by, unable or unwilling to intervene.

The report documents one instance after another in which residents suffered significant health problems and found their homes rendered nearly uninhabitable by the noxious fumes. While the energy boom has undeniably proven to be a windfall for some of the local residents, it has destroyed the quality of life for many others; along with severe headaches, nausea, breathing problems and other physical ailments, some lifelong residents can no longer sit on their porches because of a sickening stench and find a greasy residue coating their car windshields. Farmers can’t let their livestock graze anywhere near the wells for fear they’ll be poisoned. One farming family lost all six of its work dogs, who died a mysterious, agonizing death after vomiting and scratching themselves bloody. (The vet ruled out the obvious suspects such as rat poison or antifreeze, but a necropsy was too expensive, so the family will never know the exact cause of death.)

All these concerns are routinely dismissed by the energy companies as aberrations or exaggerations from anti-oil agitators. And the government agencies in charge of monitoring air quality give lip service to the notion that they’re making an honest effort to enforce existing regulations. But the investigation revealed a long and disheartening pattern of oversight so apathetic that it borders on catatonic, thanks to budget cuts and the corrupting influence of the Texan oil and gas cabal.

The fallout from the Eagle Ford fracking is a particularly egregious example of what happens when the energy industry runs amok, but communities all over the U.S. are coping with their own fracking calamities. Earlier this month in Pennsylvania, an explosion at a Chevron fracking site near Bobtown left one employee missing and presumed dead and started a fire that burned for five days.

As with their Texas counterparts near the Eagle Ford shale, dozens of Bobtown residents complained about headaches, nausea, skin rashes, foul odors and foul waters, as well as sickened pets and livestock. But Chevron, unlike its unapologetic Texas colleagues, acknowledged the harm that it had done the community. To make up for all that unpleasantness, Team Chevron compensated the good folks of Bobtown by giving them gift certificates redeemable at Bobtown Pizza for a “Special Combo” – one large pizza and a two-liter drink, good until May 1.

Some people are questioning the wildly inappropriate nature of this gesture, but I’m going to give Chevron the benefit of the doubt, because I think I know who is to blame for this social media debacle. It’s gotta be Siri. Some muckety muck in Chevron’s PR department dictated a text to some poor flunky saying “send a peace offering to bobtown,” and Siri mangled the message so that it read “send a pizza.” I give ‘em an ‘A’ for effort, and an ‘F’ for fracking.

Make sure to check out the first link  an eight month-long investigation by the mighty multimedia trio InsideClimate News, the Center for Public Integrity and The Weather Channel.

Angel: Bedford County PA

Excerpt from “Shalefield Stories - Personal and Collected Testimonies”

Published by Steel Valley Printers

January 2014

Living in Bedford County for 16 years, our community used to be quaint and peaceful. We could sit on the porch together and hear the running water from the creek down below. All we hear now is the compressor station from the gas company and the ongoing traffic brought on by the gas extraction in our area. Now the creek is gone, and the pond might as well be gone with the contamination that now consumes it. 

In 2001 and 2002, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) approached us about drilling 5 production wells around our property. They were to last 15 years. None of these production wells were going to be on our land, just surrounding us. In 2007, Spectra Energy bought these production wells and converted them into storage wells and informed us that they now owned them and would do with it as they pleased. This is when we first noticed problems. The wells were supposed to be dry. When they were converted to storage wells, that’s when the water contamination first started. The pressure from the wells and the fact the wells were not dry is what caused the contamination. Spectra Energy showed a complete disregard of the area and the people. Shortly thereafter we discovered arsenic in our water. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as well as Spectra said that the arsenic found in the water was at normal levels and that it is was naturally occurring. Some of our neighbors have higher arsenic levels than we do, but DEP still tells us that this is all naturally occurring. In another case, in 2011, I smelled gas when I was out with my family. The DEP did nothing. We called the fire chief. He tested the air and found carbon dioxide and propane. He said if it had been in a building, we would have needed to evacuate our home. 

During this time we lost 5 cows, 3 dogs, 12 chickens, 4 cats, and 1 horse. When we described how the animals had died to the state veterinarians, they had told us that it sounded like arsenic poisoning. We had not informed him that high levels of arsenic had been found in our water. 

Our quality of life is pretty much gone, and this is greatly related to health issues. My husband, Wayne, has problems catching his breath. The doctors still don’t know what is wrong. He was given an inhaler at first and was told he had COPD, but the inhaler did not help and a second opinion revealed that COPD was not the problem. I have red rashes on my neck. My doctor directed me to a dermatologist. After being sent to many different doctors, I saw a doctor in Pittsburgh who told me that I had some kind of bile duct liver disease. I don’t know where it came from, and the doctor’s only option now is to slow it down. The median until either death or liver transplantation is approximately 10 years. 

In my opinion, we need to get rid of the DEP. They spend more time regulating us, the people, and not the oil and gas companies. We need to change the standards of eminent domain; this is what Spectra Energy used to take our land. Eminent domain is supposed to be for the public good, not for the wealth of a private company. Politicians need to realize that American citizens are paying their salaries. We are paying them to protect us. As a voter, I would rather throw my vote away than vote for people who take money from the gas and oil companies. I want to talk to the people who do not take money from the gas companies. 

- Angel 

New study shows proximity to fracking sites increases risk of birth defects

EcoWatch :: Brandon Baler  ::  January 30, 2014 

Fracking in Colorado. Video screenshot: PBS

The dangers of fracking are no secret, but a study released this week shows the devastating impact the process can have on babies before they even have a chance to live their lives.

The unborn children of pregnant women who live within a 10-mile radius of fracking sites are far more susceptible to congenital heart defects (CHD), according to Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado, the latest study from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH) and Environmental Health Perspectives’ (EHP).

The study examined data from 124,842 rural Colorado births from 1996 to 2009.

“We observed an association between density and proximity of natural gas wells within a 10-mile radius of maternal residence and prevalence of CHDs and possibly neural tube defects,” the study reads.

Gary Wockner, director of Clean Water Action’s Colorado program, had a more direct interpretation of the study.

“These findings suggest that fracking causes babies to be deformed—the more we learn about fracking, the worse it gets,” he said. “If you live near a fracking site and you want to have a healthy baby, you should consider moving.”

According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 26 percent of the more than 47,000 oil and gas wells in the state are located within 150 to 1000 feet of a home or other type of building that is intended for human occupancy.

“What’s most shocking is that this extremely dangerous industrial process of fracking has been allowed to occur with virtually no regulation and no study of the public health impacts,” Wockner said. “This study is revealing the terrible truth about fracking—it is a public health hazard, the breadth of which we are only beginning to know about.”

Links to Quebec Health Reports

L'unité de santé environnementale de l'Institut national de santé publique du Québec a réalisé une mise à jour de sa recension d'écrits concernant la relation entre l'industrie du gaz de schiste et la santé humaine.

Ce document est maintenant publié sur le site internet de notre organisme:  http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/1749_EtatConnRelaActGazSchisteSantePubl_MAJ.pdf

Il complète le document suivant, publié en 2010: http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/1177_RelGazSchisteSantePubRapPreliminaire.pdf

Salutations amicales!