Interior Department Killing Climate Progress

The climate hypocrisy of the U.S. Department of the Interior reached new and absolutely bizarre lows this past week.

On Monday, Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior Department, helped unveil the largest solar farm on our public lands, commending the project for taking “action on climate change” and helping “move our nation toward a renewable energy future.”

The plaudits were well founded.  After all, an estimated 300,000 tons of carbon stand to be displaced annually by the 550 megawatt solar farm, not an insignificant amount.

Two days later, however, Sally Jewell completely obliterated this climate progress.

In an oil and gas lease sale in Colorado, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management auctioned off 15,424 acres of public lands for drilling and fracking in the Little Snake Field Office in northwest Colorado.

Touted as an economic success, what the Bureau of Land Management failed to acknowledge is that development of these leases would fuel an increase in carbon dioxide (i.e., CO2) emissions to more than 800,000 tons annually just in the Little Snake Field Office.  The chart below, taken from the agency’s own environmental analysis, plainly shows the projected increase.

CO2 increase in Little Snake Field Office

Air emission increases projected in the Bureau of Land Management’s Little Snake Field Office of western Colorado (taken from p. 23 of the agency’s analysis).

That’s not the worst of it.  The chart above also shows that methane emissions (i.e., CH4) from oil and gas development would increase to 19,247 tons annually.  Given that methane is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide, that amounts to more than 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

When everything is said and done, we’re looking at a decision by the Interior Department that will increase carbon emissions by more than 2 million tons annually.

carbon differences

The net carbon increase is actually 2,184,229 tons annually.  No climate benefits will be remotely reaped by the Interior Department’s solar project. 

And as if this wasn’t bad enough, this increase doesn’t even take into account the carbon emissions that will result from the burning of the produced oil and gas.  All told, we’re taking about a major carbon setback.

So much for the benefits of solar, so much for climate progress at the Interior Department, and so much for moving our nation toward renewable energy.

Oh, and as for the claimed economic success of the Bureau of Land Management’s oil and gas lease sale?  Taking into account the value of carbon, which could be as high as $220 per ton, we’re looking upwards of $480 million in costs.  That’s a far cry from the $319,113 in revenue reported by the agency.

The worst of it is, more oil and gas leasing and even more carbon pollution is on the horizon.

Just this past week, the Bureau of Land Management announced plans to lease 35,000 more acres of public lands in Colorado, including 25,000 acres of the Pawnee National Grassland.  And next week, the agency intends to auction off 12,000 acres of public lands for fracking in southern Utah.

The climate hypocrisy of the Interior Department seemingly knows no bounds.  For our nation and our future, hopefully this will change and change soon.  We can’t save the climate by selling more oil and gas.

DSCN3736

Public lands oil and gas development approved by the Department of the Interior is destroying climate progress.

Interior Department: Carbon Costs “Misleading”

In July, the Obama Administration was called out over its utter hypocrisy in curtailing carbon pollution in the U.S.

On the one hand, the Administration says that delaying carbon clean up will cost us billions.  On the other, the U.S. Department of Interior, head by Secretary Sally Jewell, is selling millions of tons of coal in the American West and not only refusing to account for carbon costs, but defending their decisions in spite of the climate impacts.

Thankfully, we’re making some progress in reining in the Department’s unwillingness to share in the responsibility to combat climate change.

Just yesterday, a federal judge overturned a coal leasing decision in Colorado over the agency’s failure to assess the social cost of carbon emissions associated with the leasing.  The order comes on the heels of a June ruling where the court held Interior illegally refused to use the “social cost of carbon” protocol, an interagency method of assessing the cost of carbon emissions, when analyzing the environmental and economic impacts of leasing more coal.  The judge was especially perturbed that the agency touted the supposed economic benefits of more mining while completely downplaying (actually, outright denying) the climate costs, which the court noted could be as high as $1 billion (as the court observed, “in effect the agency prepared half of a cost-benefit analysis”).

Cognitive dissonance doesn’t even begin to explain the disconnect here.  What the Interior Department is doing is completely (and literally) undermining our efforts to combat climate change.  Even as President Obama empowers the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce greenhouse gases, Sally Jewell’s coal decisions are unleashing massive amounts of carbon.

Either President Obama isn’t really serious about curtailing carbon or the Department of Interior is completely out of line.  It doesn’t take a genius to know where the problem lies.

The federal coal leasing program has been called the “elephant in the room” that, unbelievably, has yet to be noticed.  Yet all indications are that Interior is well aware that coal leasing is detrimental to our climate.  What’s worse, everything indicates that they are deliberately turning their backs on the issue, going so far as to continue denying carbon costs.

Case in point, on August 15, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management approved 15.75 million tons of new coal mining in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.  Coal is mined for one reason, to be burned, and when burned, this coal stands to unleash 26 million metric tons of carbon pollution (in case there’s any question about the significance of this amount, it equals the annual carbon emissions of 5.4 million cars according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s handy carbon calculator).

So what did the agency have to say about the cost of these carbon emissions?  Complete denial.

In fact, in response to concerns over carbon costs, Interior not only argued that the social cost of carbon protocol is inappropriate for assessing the impacts of coal leasing (an assertion rejected by the federal court in Colorado), but argued that such an analysis would be “unbalanced” and “misleading” (see their decision at bottom of page 2 to page 3).

It gets worse.  For instance, while the Department argued that they are not required to do a cost-benefit analysis, and therefore not obligated to assess carbon costs, they actually did prepare a cost-benefit analysis that again, only touted the purported economic benefits of mining.  In the underlying Environmental Impact Statement for the lease, they estimated hundreds of millions increased revenue and dozens of new jobs (see Environmental Impact Statement at p. 3-160).  In other words, they put together the same “half of a cost benefit analysis” overturned by the federal court in Colorado.

Adding absurdity to the mix, they assert that the social cost of carbon impacts would be “negligible” when compared to the costs of carbon from coal nationwide or globally.  Of course, no actual analysis was completed to support this “negligible” claim and, not surprisingly, they didn’t take such a big picture view when assessing the supposed benefits of more coal mining (after all, using Interior’s logic, wouldn’t the addition of dozens of jobs be “negligible” when compared to all the jobs provided by other industries nationwide or globally?).

To underscore the absurdity, assuming the 26 million metric tons of carbon is produced in 2015, this would lead to costs as low as $260 million and as high as $2.8 billion (for 2015, estimated carbon costs range from $11 per metric ton to $109, depending on the discount rate).  Put another way, Interior is actually claiming that a cost of $2.8 billion is negligible.

Topping it all off, the agency continued to stand by its claim that, “The tools necessary to quantify climatic impacts from projects such as a lease modification are presently unavailable” (see Environmental Assessment at p. 27).  Yet the federal court in Colorado affirmed that there is a tool, the social cost of carbon protocol (see ruling at p. 17).

Why would Interior argue such deceit?  It’s unclear, but the only reason for the agency to describe a social cost of carbon analysis as “unbalanced” and “misleading” is because it would show that the cost of leasing coal isn’t worth it.

Ultimately, the Department of Interior is either one of America’s most dangerous climate deniers or the they’re truly of the mind that they must lease coal at any cost.  Either way, it’s clear that the agency has no intention of stepping up to address the carbon impacts of coal leasing.

To put it bluntly, the U.S. Interior Department isn’t ignoring the elephant in the room, they’re simply trying to hide it.

We’re making progress in cutting carbon, but so long as Sally Jewell and the Department of Interior keep flouting our nation’s commitment to safeguarding the climate, it’s clear we can never fully succeed.

DSCN3644

Saving our climate is as easy as keeping carbon underground, something the U.S. Interior Department has yet to embrace.

UPDATE:  On October 6, 2014, WildEarth Guardians filed its statement of reasons challenging the Interior Department’s latest coal leasing plans in the Powder River Basin.  Among other things, the appeal challenges Interior’s completely arbitrary and unsupported assertion that disclosing carbon costs would be misleading.  The statement of reasons calls on the Interior Board of Land Appeals to overturn the decision and compel a rational and accurate analysis of climate impacts.

Your Land is Fracked: The Untold Story of Drilling on Our Public Lands

Note: Tim Ream is WildEarth Guardians’ new Climate and Energy Campaign Director. He’ll be joining me in blogging here from time to time.  Enjoy his first post!  — Jeremy Nichols

I’ve spent a whole lot of days and nights in my life enjoying the beautiful public lands we have been blessed with across this nation. I’ve experienced the awe of waking in subalpine forests covered in new snow, incredible morning birdsong along desert riverbanks, and the diverse life and landscapes of myriad other wonderful places on our National Forests and on lands managed for us by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Still, my first night out with WildEarth Guardians’ Climate and Energy Program Director, Jeremy Nichols, was brand new to me. We set camp in a coal-bed methane drilling field that was unlike anything I had ever seen on public lands.

Think of your favorite wild place and then imagine one of these plopped in every direction.

Think of your favorite wild place and then imagine one of these plopped in every direction.

I had just started my first week as Guardians’ new Climate and Energy Campaign Director and Jeremy decided I needed some intimate acquaintance with the land it was now my job to protect. Guardians’ vision is that our U.S. public lands should be completely free of fossil fuel development. After all, more than one in three Americans rely on public lands as a source of their drinking water. If you travel just about anywhere in this country, you surely drink water that originates on our public lands. The last thing any of us want is to have our families contaminated by chemical concoctions used to frack for oil and gas – often secret chemical combinations that companies refuse to identify to doctors or researchers.

 

Well pads don't just make your public lands hike ugly, they can kill you.

Well pads don’t just make your hike on public lands look ugly, they can kill you.

Along with clean water, we expect our National Forests and other public lands to be sources of clean air. Just the opposite is happening in many rural communities near frack jobs on our public lands. Rural communities in Utah and Colorado have already been federally declared as unhealthy air zones with fracking, oil and gas transport, and oil and gas processing the culprit for excessive smog. Air monitors in rural regions in some other Western states, otherwise free from industrial sources or heavy traffic except for oil and gas production, are also beginning to ring alarms over their decline in clean air. I personally had a hard time breathing in the worst of the areas we visited.

Great open spaces aren't so great when tracking invades.

Great open spaces aren’t so great when fracking invades.

But even if public lands oil and gas could be magically fracked (and nearly all oil and gas produced in this country nowadays is fracked) in some pristine way that didn’t pollute our air and drinking water, we’d still have to fight it. That’s because just about every serious scientist who has weighed in on global warming policy prescriptions agrees that the bulk of the fossil fuel left in the world has to be kept in the ground.

The simple truth is most fossil fuels must be left in the ground or we risk runaway global warming.

The simple truth is most fossil fuels must be left in the ground or we risk runaway global warming.

So, how are we going to lockdown hundreds of billions of dollars of fossil fuel that every greedy oilman and gas developer in the world wants to get their paws on? The same way we have created large open spaces free from industrial or residential development; the same way we have preserved landscapes big enough for bison and wolves; the same way we have kept forests uncut for miles in every direction. Our precious public lands, and the fossil fuels found under them don’t belong to the federal government. They belong to us; they’re our birthright as citizens. The government only manages them at our direction. Those are our fossil fuels. That’s our carbon. And the way I read the polls, most Americans don’t want that carbon burned up into our atmosphere, speeding the pace to an unlivable world of runaway global warming for our kids and grandkids.

The biggest most protected landscapes in our country are all on our public lands because that is where we the people have the most influence to protect them. So it only makes sense that the place we will have the most influence in locking down the first extensive sources of carbon, and thereby turning the tide on climate change, is on public lands that hold publicly-owned carbon. We have to keep the oil and gas and coal industries from burning our carbon and destroying our climate. And as the greatest historical climate polluter, it only makes sense that the U.S. has the responsibility to lead on this carbon lockdown issue by locking down our public lands fossil fuels first.

Your public lands or just another cash cow for Big Oil and Gas?

Your public lands or just another cash cow for Big Oil and Gas?

With that as our mission, Jeremy took me out for a tour of what we are up against, specifically focusing on oil and gas. It isn’t pretty. We did an 1800-mile loop from Denver up through southern Wyoming, through Utah’s Uinta Basin, down to northwestern New Mexico and then back to Colorado. Despite the distance, we still only saw a tiny fraction of public lands oil and gas drilling. In fact, the U.S. currently has more than 32 million acres under lease. That is an area of public lands fossil fuel development leasing bigger than the size of New York State. Thankfully, not all of it is being developed at this time, but that is only because oil and gas companies bid on and then hold these leased public lands in speculation. One of Guardians’ goals is to stop this lease speculation on public lands by Big Oil and Gas.

Checkerboard land ownership can put public lands fracking right next to farms and ranches.

Checkerboard land ownership can put public lands fracking right next to farms and ranches.

Despite lease speculation, the amount of active development is still huge. About 25% of fossil fuels burned in this country come from public lands, those are fossil fuels that you own. Think about that: the overwhelming majority of Americans–heck, even a majority of Republicans–have told pollster after pollster that we want the government to do more to stop global warming, but what the Obama Administration is doing instead is selling off the public’s fossil fuels to speed the rate of global warming. Sarah Palin’s “drill baby, drill” turned into Barack Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy and the result is undoing all other government efforts taken to stop global warming combined.

Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy is making global warming worse.

Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy is making global warming worse.

Jeremy and I traveled landscape after landscape riddled with gas wells, pump jacks, pipelines and processing plants. We saw hundreds of miles of new roads built across vast, previously unroaded landscapes, with the sole purpose to let Big Oil and Gas pull money out of the ground. There are huge sections of public lands that have an oil well pad every quarter of a mile in every direction for hundreds of square miles. Where there are gaps, projects are proposed to fill in the blank spaces. These well pads are eyesores, dangerous, and dominate the landscape. You can’t hunt near gas tanks. You won’t picnic next to toxic industrial facilities. And you don’t camp in well fields, maybe with the exception of Jeremy and me on a mission. For all intents and purposes, we haven’t just sold Big Oil and Gas our fossil fuels, we have given away our birthright of public land.

It has to stop. Now.

Picnic anywhere you like, but please keep the kids and pets out of the toxic waste.

Picnic anywhere you like, but please keep the kids and pets out of the toxic waste.

On these pages, Jeremy has been describing what Guardians has been doing to fight coal, oil, and gas development project by project throughout the West. We are going to step up that work, with an added focus on oil and gas. We will expand on recent court wins and we have a few novel legal approaches to help us take back our lands.

In addition, we have a bigger vision. What if the young and growing climate movement, the mature and experienced public lands movement, and the fiery and surging anti-fracking movement all joined forces to shut down one-third of all oil and gas fracking in one fell swoop? Guardians is hoping to catalyze this three-way movement marriage into the biggest threat the U.S. fossil fuel industry has ever faced. Taking back our carbon on our lands is a winnable fight and would be an incredibly powerful step turning the U.S. into a leader in addressing climate change.

Stay tuned to these pages.

And of course, you can help. Please support our work in protecting our drinking water, our air, and our climate by joining WildEarth Guardians and lending your support to kicking the fossil fuel industry off our public lands for good. Become a member or make a donation today.

I look forward to working with you on this incredibly important campaign. Check out more photos of our public lands fracking tour here. And thank you for your support.

Tim Ream

Climate and Energy Campaign Director

The author is unhappy with oil and gas drilling on public lands.

The author is unhappy with oil and gas drilling on public lands.

Recreating our way out of Global Warming?

Although bread and butter conservation groups like the National Wildlife Federation are lauding her outdoor credentials, the idea of Sally Jewell, the current CEO of REI, as the next Secretary of the Interior raises serious questions over whether the Obama Administration has any sense at all about how to confront our nation’s mounting energy and climate crisis.

Don’t get me wrong; the Interior Department manages more than 1/5 of the land in the United States, making the Agency the top provider of outdoor recreation opportunities.  In this regard, Sally Jewell is a stellar candidate when it comes to advancing appreciation and protection of the Interior Department’s outside world.  After all, as CEO of REI (that’s Recreational Equipment, Inc.), she’s shown that outdoor recreation is not only good for the environment, but good for business.

But recreation isn’t all that the Interior Department does.  It’s a sliver of what it does.

In fact, at its heart, the Interior Department is an energy agency.  Overseeing all federally owned coal, oil, and natural gas, Interior is an energy juggernaut, and most of that energy is fossil fuel-based.  Consider that nearly 60% of all coal burned in the U.S. and more than a third of all oil and gas produced in nation comes from federal reserves (and that’s not even taking into account the fact that Interior’s Office of Surface Mining oversees virtually 100% of all coal mining in the nation, and that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management authorizes scads of private and state oil and gas drilling on its lands).

Interior isn’t just a fossil fuel peddler, it’s a fossil fuel overlord, making it one of the most influential and important government agencies when it comes to energy policy in the U.S.

It also makes the Interior Department one of the most important agencies when it comes to confronting the effects of global warming, which is being fueled by greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil, and gas.  After all, but for Interior’s approval, much of our fossil fuels would not be produced for consumption, making the Agency one of the largest contributors to our nation’s overwhelming greenhouse gas footprint.

Put another way, in the face of global warming and its disastrous effects on our environment and economy, including extreme weather, drought, deforestation, and rising air pollution, the Interior Department is on the most wanted list of those responsible.

Which is why Sally Jewell’s nomination for Interior Secretary is a shock.  Here is an agency that stands to play a critical role in transitioning our nation to clean energy, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and meaningfully addressing the threat of global warming.  And what does the President do?  He nominates an outdoor enthusiast who refused to take a stand on climate change for fear of upsetting customers with a “broad array of political views.”

To be fair, the President asserted she is an “expert” on energy and climate issues.  However, the only relevant “expertise” seems to be a stint as an oil company engineer.  Cutting through the rhetoric, it seems apparent that her appointment stems from her support for outdoor recreation initiatives, not any leadership on solving our nations’ climate and energy challenges.

Despite the hullabaloo over the President’s renewed commitment to confronting global warming, his appointment of Sally Jewell as Interior Secretary seems to send the signal that we should expect more business as usual.

That’s disturbing.  Although Interior has made much about its efforts to develop 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands, its most recent coal leasing decisions alone will fuel more than 300,000 megawatts of fossil fuel energy generation.

To say things are lopsided, as former Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, commented, would be an understatement.

Fundamentally, we can’t continue on a path that is wholly dependent on coal, oil, and natural gas, and expect to have any chance of reversing, or at least stabilizing, the effects of global warming.  This means the Interior Department must make transitioning away from fossil fuels a number one priority.  Given her background and the rhetoric around her nomination, it seems extremely unlikely that priorities will shift at all at Interior if Sally Jewell is confirmed.

With the latest Secretary of Interior nomination, it seems we can expect great conservation initiatives, collaboration with recreational interests, and perhaps greater protection for lands and wildlife in the U.S.  It seems unlikely that with Sally Jewell, we can expect any change when it comes to leading our nation forward on clean energy and in truly confronting the climate crisis.

Decorative Coal Landscaping? Anyone?

Coal is mined for one reason:  to be burned.

It’s not used for decorative landscaping.  It’s not used for building material.  It’s certainly not used for jewelry.  Whether it’s for power (the primary use) or industrial purposes (steel, cement, etc.), the bottomline is, coal is mined to be burned.

So it was curious, if not utterly bizarre, to see the U.S. Interior Department’s latest response to concerns over the environmental impacts of authorizing more coal mining in northwestern Colorado.  That response?

“Combustion of the coal is too speculative.”

Too speculative.  In other words, according to the Interior Department, even though coal is mined for one reason and one reason alone–to be burned–it is too speculative to conclude that more coal mining will lead to more coal burning.

This has to be the most purposefully incompetent, willfully ignorant, and deliberately reckless responses to public concerns over coal burning.

And sadly, it gets worse.

The decision at issue is a new coal lease for Peabody Energy’s new Sage Creek coal mine in northwestern Colorado.  As I’ve blogged about before, Sage Creek is intended to fuel Xcel Energy’s nearby Hayden power plant.  Peabody is gunning for a federal coal lease to lock in the mine as a long-term source of coal for Hayden and potentially even for export to Europe.

Last fall, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Interior Department agency charged with managing federal coal, proposed to auction off a new coal lease for Peabody to complete its Sage Creek mine.  Before doing so though, the agency had to analyze the environmental impacts of the new coal lease and solicit public input.

WildEarth Guardians responded.  And, of course, we called on the Bureau to address the fact that the coal from the Sage Creek mine would not only be burned in the nearby Hayden power plant, but fuel more coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and possibly abroad, leading more greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollution.

It goes without saying that more coal leasing means more coal mining, which of course means coal burning.  So, it also goes without saying that the Bureau of Land Management has a duty to address these impacts and perhaps temper its decision to better protect our health and the environment.

At least, that’s what we thought.

Because when the Bureau finally responded to our comments, it wasn’t a thoughtful analysis of environmental impacts or a meaningful effort to, perhaps, minimize the global warming impacts of its coal leasing decision.  No, it was this:

“Combustion of the coal is too speculative.”

Read for yourself on page 63 of their Environmental Assessment (or see the bottom of page 25).

The disconnection from reality is stunning.  Even Peabody has said coal from Sage Creek is intended to be a long-term fuel source for the Hayden coal-fired power plant, and has invested millions to make it happen and is locking in contracts as I write.

We know the U.S. Interior Department refuses to admit that its coal leasing and mining decisions have any greenhouse gas implications, but this latest claim–that combustion of Sage Creek coal is speculative–takes the cake.

This isn’t just an agency that’s avoiding responsibility, it’s an agency that’s demented.

Because if coal from the Sage Creek mine in Colorado isn’t burned, perhaps the Interior Department thinks it’s going to be used for decorative landscaping.  Or maybe building material.  Or maybe jewelry.

We can only hope.

In the meantime, that’s f-ing crazy.
Coal Mine

Coal mining…for decorative landscaping?

Fair Market Secret (and Updated Powder River Basin Map)

On the heels of news that more than one billion tons of coal have been auctioned off from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming just in the last year, the Bureau of Land Management yesterday stunningly rejected a bid from Peabody Energy for one of the biggest coal leases ever to be offered.

The lease in question, called South Porcupine, would have added 400 million tons of coal to Peabody’s North Antelope Rochelle mine, the second largest in the U.S.

The reason for rejecting Peabody’s bid?  According to the Bureau of Land Management, their 90¢ per ton offer for the lease was below fair market value.

But what is fair market value?  Funny you should ask, because the fact is, we don’t know.

That’s because the Bureau of Land Management won’t tell us.  In fact, not only will they not tell us what fair market value is, they won’t even tell us how they calculate fair market value.

In a 2011 response to a Freedom of Information Act request from WildEarth Guardians asking for fair market value records for several coal leases that were already sold, the Agency refused to provide any documents.  Their reason?  Well, read for yourself:

In this case, the government is involved in a commercial endeavor and is statutorily required to ensure that it receives at least fair market value (FMV) for the coal being sold. We are withholding coal reservoir appraisal data, coal reservoir geological analysis data, and the FMV data that were derived from the appraisal and geological data. Disclosure of the referenced data could cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the government by creating an unfair or “gamed” bidding processt thereby suppressing the value of bids for pending sales, as well as in subsequent sales of adjacent lands.

The Agency went on to assert:

We are also withholding the information in these documents pursuant to exemption 5 because disclosure of this information could interfere with the deliberative process leading up to BLM’s final decisions on FMV estimates. The documents reveal BLM staff opinions and recommendations that are considered in development of the FMV estimate. Disclosure of that information could create confusion about the primary factors considered in FMV decisions and would have a chilling effect on the agency’s candid discussion of the various factors that influence the FMV estimates.

You can read the full response here (page 10 has their response on the fair market value data).  In other words, fair market value is secret and the process for calculating fair market value is secret.  If this sounds a bit odd, it’s because it is.

Because the Bureau of Land Management is basically claiming not only that it can’t release fair market value data for leases that have already been sold, but it can’t even release records that explain how fair market value is calculated.

It would be like an appraiser not only refusing to share with us the appraised value of our home, but also refusing to share with us the procedures for appraising our home.  That would be a huge problem, especially when it came time to, oh, I don’t know, sell our home.

Yet that’s exactly what’s going on here.  Because the coal being auctioned off in the Powder River Basin is owned by the federal government, which means it’s owned by us.  That means it’s supposed to be sold to make money for us.

Of course, how do we know we’re making money if we don’t even know the value of what we’re selling?

We don’t know.  And, unfortunately, we apparently can’t know because according to the Bureau of Land Management, the value of our public assets and the process for valuing those public assets, is secret.

While this may be convenient for the federal government, ultimately, it leaves the American public with little reason to believe that we’re actually recovering the full value of this coal.

As for all the Bureau of Land Management’s excuses about “substantial harm” to the competitive position of the government and the “chilling effect” of releasing fair market information, this all seems to be a ruse.

Although the Agency has a point that releasing fair market value data for pending leases could lead to rigged bidding (in fact, that’s exactly what happened in the late 70’s and early 80’s, read the declaration of economist Tom Sanzillo at page 18-22, which was filed in conjunction with WildEarth Guardians’ most recent lawsuit over coal leasing in the Powder River Basin), the fact is, it’s a rigged process already.  That’s because, for the most part, there is no bidding for Powder River Basin coal.  In the last 22 years, 27 coal leases have been sold and only five have had more than one bidder.  If that’s not rigged bidding in and of itself, then I don’t know what is.

Regardless, there should be no problem in releasing fair market value data for leases that have already been sold.  The only thing this data would ever “chill” is public concern over whether the government is doing its job.

So what is the Bureau of Land Management hiding?  Honestly, I think they’re hiding the fact that for years now, they’ve been offering Powder River Basin coal at bargain prices.

That’s not say they haven’t been selling the coal at fair market value.  It’s just that fair market value, in all reality, probably isn’t really, truly, actually fair market value.

Perhaps they’re waking up to this.  I hope so.  The South Porcupine coal lease threatens to lead to the release of more than 660 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s handy online greenhouse gas equivalency calculator, that’s equal to the annual emissions of 156 coal-fired power plants.

The Bureau of Land Management seems to be taking a newfound stand against artificially cheap coal and in turn, global warming.  Let’s hope this trend continues.

In the meantime, I challenge the Agency to come clean with its fair market value assessments.  Just like no reasonable homeowner would ever allow an appraiser to keep their appraisals secret, the American public has a right to know how the Bureau of Land Management is assessing our coal and what the value really is.

UPDATED MAP!

On other fronts, check out our updated interactive Powder River Basin coal map (view the larger map for easier navigation).  And if you’re into Google Earth, download this .kml file with more detailed data and learn more about this coal producing region.  The map is always available on our Powder River Basin map page.

Greenhouse Gas Cover Up at Interior

In spite of President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order calling on federal agencies to “inventory, report, and adopt targets for reducing their direct and indirect GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions,” our federal government is now trying to cover up over a billion tons of greenhouse gases that it is directly responsible for.

And the blame seems to lie squarely on the U.S. Interior Department.

That’s according to a recent report by The Wilderness Society, which found that the federal government has underestimated its total greenhouse gas footprint by at least 95% because it ignored emissions from coal mining and oil and gas drilling under federal control, yet undertaken by private entities.

The federal government’s estimate, which was prepared by the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality in 2011, reported that total greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 66.4 million metric tons.

That’s an impressive amount of greenhouse gas emissions on its own.  Yet according to the latest report, when factoring in all the coal and oil and gas production authorized by the U.S. Interior Department, the actual figure is actually 1,551 million metric tons.

That’s over one and a half billion tons of greenhouse gases–more than 25% of the total greenhouse gas inventory in the United States.  Completely ignored.

Not surprisingly, the report shows the majority of these emissions come from coal production overseen by the Interior Department.  The image below, taken from the report, shows the breakdown in emission sources.

The bulk of this production can be traced back to the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, which WildEarth Guardians has reported is a root contributor to global warming in the U.S.

The Powder River Basin provides 43% of the nation’s coal–more than any other region in the nation.  In 2010 alone, the region produced 468,428,000 tons of coal, which was burned in hundreds of coal-fired power plants, leading to an estimated 777.12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a full 13% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (the Bureau of Land Management, the Interior agency responsible for managing coal, estimates that 1.659 metric tons of carbon dioxide are released for every ton of Powder River Basin coal burned).

All of the coal in in the Powder River Basin is federally owned, meaning the Interior Department was directly responsible for allowing this 777.12 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Put another way, the Interior Department has a lot–a lot–of greenhouse gases on its hands.

And while it’s not surprising that such massive amounts of coal mining would lead to such massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, what is surprising is that the Interior Department would completely disregard them.

Because Interior Department officials themselves have recognized that not only are they responsible for these emissions, but that the emissions need to be accounted for.  As Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes commented in the Washington Post last December:

Let’s be forthright on identifying the full greenhouse gas effects, including those downstream…[when it comes to extracting coal in the United States] we know it’s likely to be used as a fuel, it’s going to be combusted, and there will be greenhouse gas implications to that.

With the President himself calling on federal agencies to assess and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, there’s no excuse for the Interior’s glaring omissions.  As friends at the Center for American Progress commented:

This study should serve as an important wake up call for President Obama and the leaders in his administration, both of which have made serious commitments to addressing the climate crisis and making the United States the world leader in clean energy development.  Not only has the president pledged to reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar stated in Copenhagen that “carbon pollution is putting our world—and our way of life—in peril.”

It’s time for the Interior Department to be forthright with its link to global warming, as Mr. Hayes says.  More importantly, it’s time for the Interior Department to stop covering up the problem and start coming up with solutions.