Two oil line ruptures in as many weeks may jeopardize a planned Alberta-to-Texas tar-sands pipeline that Calgary-based TransCanada is currently seeking approval for. The 1,702-mile, $12 billion Keystone XL line could get the go-ahead from the US State Department by year's end. But on May 7, a valve broke at a pumping station near near Cogswell, North Dakota, along the first leg of the Keystone pipeline system. The breach released some 500 barrels of Canadian heavy crude inside the facility and set off a geyser of oil that reached above the treetops in a nearby field. Just ten months ago the pipeline began transporting bitumen from Alberta's oil sands mines to refineries in Patoka, Illinois. A recent study by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups said that because tar-sands pipelines carry a highly corrosive and acidic mix of diluted bitumen and volatile natural gas liquid condensate, they raise the risk of spills. The study found that internal corrosion has caused more than 16 times as many spills in the Alberta pipeline system than the US system because of bitumen.

The US on May 11 approved a Royal Dutch Shell plan to drill for oil in five locations deep under the Gulf of Mexico. The proposal, for drilling in the so-called Appomattox discovery, was the second exploration plan submitted by Shell to win approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) since the agency introduced stricter criteria for new drilling following last year’s Macondo disaster. The company’s Cardamom discovery in the Garden Banks area of the Gulf was approved in March. At least six other deep-water plans are now pending for the Gulf. Companies apply for permits to actually exploit oil after receiving approval for an exploration plan. The government lifted a moratorium on deep-water Gulf drilling in October. Shell runs the Appomattox venture and holds an 80% stake, with Nexen Inc. holding the remaining 20%. (WSJ, Upstream Online, May 11)

A group of Nobel Peace laureates called in an open letter April 21 for all countries to pursue safer forms of renewable energy rather than going ahead with plans for nuclear development in light of the current disaster in Japan. "It is time to recognize that nuclear power is not a clean, safe or affordable source of energy," said the letter written by laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, José Ramos Horta, Betty Williams, Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchu Túm, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi and Wangari Maathai. "We firmly believe that if the world phases out its current use of nuclear power, future generations of people everywhere—and the Japanese people who have already suffered too much—will live in greater peace and security," said the letter which has been sent to 31 heads of state whose countries are currently heavily invested in atomic power production, or are considering investing in nuclear power. (Indian Express, April 21)

Celebrating Earth Day in their heart-warming way, more and more and more right-wing and climate-denialist websites are seizing upon a 2005 report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) predicting that climate change would create 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010—and gloating that it hasn't come to pass. This is essentially a replay of last year's controversy over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's accidental reversal of two digits in its prediction of when the world's glaciers would disappear. We've often warned against putting too much credence in the crystal ball set who think that making dire near-future predictions is a winning way to achieve political aims. But again, the critics are getting away with spinning it as "this whole global warming thing is a bunch of propaganda."

One year after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the world is witnessing the new horror of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While last spring the world held its breath for weeks wondering when BP technicians could get the Gulf gusher under control, the world has now been similarly in grim suspense for weeks wondering when TEPCO officials can get the Fukushima radiation leaks under control. Yet, amazingly, nuclear energy's boosters are continuing even now to portray it as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The Obama administration has pledged no retreat from (oxymoronic) "clean nuclear power" plans—even as it takes the energy industry's side in litigation seeking to hold it liable for global warming.

An April press release from the Center for Biological Diversity:

A Deadly Toll: The Gulf Oil Spill and the Unfolding Wildlife Disaster
Last year's BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe spilled 205.8 million gallons of oil and 225,000 tons of methane into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 25 percent of the oil was recovered, leaving more than 154 million gallons of oil at sea. In addition to the oil, nearly 2 million gallons of toxic dispersants were sprayed into the Gulf's waters. This did not actually reduce the amount of oil left in the ocean, but merely broke it into smaller particles, which may actually make the oil more toxic for some ocean life and ease its entry into the food chain.

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 19 in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut regarding whether electric utilities contributed to global warming. The court is being asked to decide (1) whether states and private parties have standing to seek judicially-fashioned emissions caps on five utilities for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources; (2) whether a cause of action to cap carbon dioxide emissions can be implied under federal common law where no statute creates such a cause of action, and the Clean Air Act speaks directly to the same subject matter and assigns federal responsibility for regulating such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency; and (3) whether claims seeking to cap defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at "reasonable" levels, based on a court's weighing of the potential risks of climate change against the socioeconomic utility of defendants' conduct, would be governed by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" or could be resolved without "initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion."

From Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), April 5:

Washington, DC — A plan awaiting approval by the US Environmental Protection Agency that would dramatically increase permissible radioactive releases in drinking water, food and soil after "radiological incidents" is drawing vigorous objections from agency experts, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). At issue is the acceptable level of public health risk following a radiation release, whether an accidental spill or a "dirty bomb" attack.