* Ombudsman Program set up after 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas
* Office was set up to hear BP workers’ safety concerns
* 112 employees have filed complaints with office

RELATED TOPICS

* BP plc
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* Texas
* Accidents and Disasters
* Gulf Coast Oil Spill

Don’t miss “AC360°” at 10 p.m. ET Wednesday for more on this story.

Washington (CNN) — BP has been trying to shut down an internal safety watchdog agency it set up under congressional pressure four years ago, according to sources close to the office and a leading congressman.

The Ombudsman Program was set up after a 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas that killed 15 workers and a massive oil spill in Alaska the following year. Its chief, former federal judge Stanley Sporkin, would not comment for this story — but a source inside his office told CNN, “I’m surprised we’re still here.”

The Washington-based office was set up to hear BP workers’ safety concerns after investigations into the Texas City refinery explosion raised questions about whether employees feared retaliation for speaking up. Since then, 112 employees have filed complaints, and 35 of them have dealt with “system integrity or safety issues” that the office says are extremely serious.

But sources close to the office say BP doesn’t like having independent investigators pursuing those complaints. A union representative told CNN that some workers who complained have faced retaliation. Jeanne Pascal, a former lawyer for the Environmental Protection Agency, agreed.

“They’ve been demoted, they’ve been terminated, they’ve also been blackballed,” Pascal said.

BP spokesman Steve Rinehart said the company has a “zero-tolerance” policy toward retaliation and said it is unaware of any unresolved cases that violate that policy.

“Concerns raised internally or with the Ombudsman’s office in respect to our operations are fully investigated and appropriate actions are implemented,” he said in a statement supplied to CNN. He added, “If Ms. Pascal or others believe there are cases that have not been resolved appropriately, they can be raised through the ombudsman’s office.

BP has promised Rep. Bart Stupak, the chairman of a congressional subcommittee investigating the April sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig, that it will keep the watchdog office in place for another year. But Stupak said the head of BP’s American subsidiary, Lamar McKay, told him earlier this year that the ombudsman’s office was slated for elimination.

McKay had become the head of BP America in January 2009, more than a year before the the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and uncorked the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Stupak, D-Michigan, and other lawmakers met with McKay in January and March of that year.

“One of the first things Mr. McKay said was, ‘I’m going to replace the ombudsman. I’m going to shut her down,’ ” Stupak told CNN. “He wasn’t even on the job for more than a few weeks, maybe a month or two, and he wanted to shut down the ombudsman. We encouraged him not to do so.”

Stupak said lawmakers were “shocked” that McKay would bring up the topic so soon.

“The logic was, ‘Well, we will make things better,’ ” he said. “Well, I’m not sure.”

BP has said it can do a good job investigating complaints through an established internal system — without the ombudsman’s office. But Pascal, who spent 26 years prosecuting polluters for the EPA, has called BP a “serial environmental criminal.” She said BP repeatedly violates environmental laws, scoffs at safety regulations and treats U.S. government safety and pollution control officials as a mere nuisance.

The company paid record federal fines and pleaded guilty to a felony in connection with the Texas City explosion. It also pleaded guilty in 2007 to one count of criminally negligent discharge of oil, a misdemeanor, in Alaska. In 2009, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint alleging the company had violated clean air and water laws in Alaska.

That record indicates that BP considers safety “a secondary or tertiary concern,” with no indication that will change, Pascal said.

“From my perspective, BP for a long time has been a company that is interested in profits first and foremost,” she said. “Safety, health and the environment are subjugated to profit-making, and I do not think that has changed.”

That cell phone charger that stays plugged in, the DVD player that waits for the occasional playing, and the TV that sits on standby all night, these are prime examples of how going green saves you money – if you unplug them, that is. For even if the items are not working, they are consuming energy!

Another of the prime examples of how going green saves you money is switching from bottled water to filtered tap water. The average family spends some $1,400 a year on bottled water. And the worst part is that 95% of the plastic bottles are not recycled! For less than $100 you could get a high quality staged water filter to make your tap water perfect.

Examples of how going green saves you money are everywhere. Do you drive as fast as the law allows? You shouldn’t. Car engines perform most efficiently at around 55 miles an hour. If you combine that with gentle driving on properly inflated tires, you will save money and help the planet too.

You could always use a bicycle to travel around town. Or you could simply walk for those short trips. You won’t be pouring hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, warming the planet, you will save money, and you will get some good exercise at the same time. Walking and cycling when you can are excellent examples of how going green saves you money.

Some 65 million newspapers are printed every day in the US. Some 70% of them will not be recycled. What a waste of trees! You can do your bit to help, and read whatever news you want to read at the same time simply by going online. Very few newspapers don’t have an online presence these days, so save some money and read from the web pages.

Do you want more example of how going green saves you money? They are all around you. Just look and you certainly will find them.

Everyone should be driving to save gas, or more accurately, driving in such a way that you do save gas and therefore money while also helping the environment by creating less pollution. This is all part of being green and saving money. You kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Your car lasts longer, costs less to run, and you feel good about the cleaner air around you, for you are now driving to save gas. Here are 5 great tips to help you.

1. Slow things down. At 70 miles an hour you are not driving to save gas. A car engine operates most efficiently at around 55 miles an hour. At that speed you will burn the gas you need and waste as little as possible. You will also get to where you are going just fine, so keep the speed down.

2. Every time you plunge your foot to the floor, or brake hard, you are not driving to save gas – you are wasting it. Sure, it may look macho, but everything about your car suffers, and so does your pocket. When you are driving to save gas you will drive gently. You will accelerate moderately and brake smoothly. Always anticipate the need to slow down so that you don’t have to slam the brakes on at the last moment, or corner harder than you meant to. Driving to save gas comes easy when you think ahead.

3. Keep your tires properly inflated. Your engine uses some 20% of its efforts just overcoming the resistance of tire rolling. That percentage figure increases when the tires are under-inflated. The amount of gas you burn increases too. Keep your tires inflated at the manufacturers recommended level at all times, and only then will you start driving to save gas.

4. Lighten the load in your car to a minimum at all times. We’re not talking about passengers here, but the junk that most people carry around with their cars. Go through the trunk and dump anything you don’t absolutely need. Do the same in the car’s interior. You will be surprised at just how much you have accumulated. It could be as much as 100 pounds. Carrying that much excess weight is not driving to save gas!

5. Only run your car’s engine when you actually need it. Consider this: it has been estimated that customers sitting in line in idling cars at Burger King waste an amazing 16 million gallons of gas a year. That’s certainly not driving to save gas! Starting your car uses about the same amount of gas as it will burn in one minute when idling. If you think you will be waiting longer than a minute, switch off. Driving to save gas is mostly common sense with a little thought. You can do it!

1. It has to be said: the very best thing you can do to help the environment with your car is stop driving it! However, you may not have that option, so drive slower instead. Most cars perform best at speeds of between 50 mph to 60 mph. Not too slow and not too fast is how to drive smart, save green.

2. A staggering 20% of your car’s fuel consumption is used up just overcoming tire roll resistance! How can you drive smart, save green in these circumstances? Buy quality tires that get great reviews. They may cost a little more, but they will perform better. And remember too that under inflated tires will cost you more in gas bills!

3. Lighten the load in your car. I’ll bet there are things in your car’s trunk that don’t need to be there. Go through each item you regularly carry. If you don’t really need it, dump it. You can drive smart, save green with a lighter load. That will let your car be more fuel efficient.

4. Switch off your engine while you wait if you are likely to be waiting more than one minute. Restarting your engine burns roughly about the same amount as one minute of idle time, so if you think you will be idling for more than a minute, cut the engine. You’ll save gas and money – drive smart, save green.

5. Drive smoothly. This one shouldn’t need to be mentioned. It should be the unspoken part of drive smart, drive green. Erratic driving with sudden accelerating and hard braking uses up extra gas. It puts extra wear and tear on your car, which means extra costs to you and the environment.

Learning to drive smart, save green is largely common sense. If you really need your car, then learn to drive it responsibly and sensibly. However, if you can walk easily to where you need to go, then do so! Only drive smart, save green when you can’t walk.

GreenEnergy`s corporate mission aims to bring large tracts of rural land under scientific but basic cultivation of bio-fuel feedstocks, bringing with it employment and entrepreneurial opportunities to potentially thousands of Vietnamese rural poor, while providing inputs for GreenEnergy`s core business, the refining and marketing of bio-diesel.

It is a win, win situation for everyone because not only does cultivation of this vegetable oil require only marginally arable, war damaged or barren land, this also means its activities do not compete with other food production which avoids putting upward pressure on food prices.

N.B (Vietnamese Government has identified seven million hectares as marginal, barren or war damaged land).

In addition GreenEnergy`s operations achieve a renewable and sustainable fuel source for Vietnam to continue its development with all the attendant social, economic and environmental benefits in producing clean energy.

Because of the scale and potential of the bio-diesel industry in Vietnam and indeed globally, where tens of millions of bio-fuel crops will have to be grown to substantially replace fossil fuels, a ‘second green revolution’ is possible, bringing with it true improvement in the lives of the rural poor and vegetable oils can play a
significant role in helping to ameliorate global warming as a key aspect of climate change.

Global warming, a key aspect of climate change, now clearly recognized as a result of a concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere – has the worst impact on the climate.

Carbon dioxide, the most common of GHGs, is emitted during the burning of fossil fuels.

The Kyoto Protocol gazetted in February 2005 requires participating countries to cut carbon emissions.
Further to this, rising crude oil prices and the need to reduce dependence on imported oil has made it necessary for net oil importers to think of alternative energy sources. The precarious situation with fossil fuel supplies coupled with the ability of bio-fuels to lessen that risk, makes it feasible for the global economy to
revert its focus towards agriculture and those traditionally engaged in it, thus offering a potential boon to Vietnam’s rural sector.

Full bio-diesel use would reduce net CO2 by over 78% compared to petroleum diesel and up to 16% with the use of blends comprising 20% bio-diesel.

While both fuels are almost equally efficient at converting raw energy resources into fuels, bio-diesel has a larger part that is renewable. Similarly, bio-diesel is non-toxic and environmentally friendly as it produces
substantially less CO2, ensuring sustainable environmental practices.

GreenEnergy has recognized this mammoth task and has adopted a dual strategy for attaining its goals in Vietnam.

1.Public –Aggressive initiatives to “jump-start” the production side of bio-fuel feedstocks by forming a partnership with Vietnams Central Government and People’s Committees as well as aid agencies to help put large tracts of marginal land under bio-fuel crop cultivation quickly.

A memorandum of understanding and support was signed by the Peoples Committee of Binh Dinh Province and Green Energy Vietnam on the 8th of December 2006 and the 500 hectare Binh Dinh Research and Training Facility for the Cultivation of Biofuel Feedstocks has been established, known as BDF- FARMER ENERGY- a working laboratory devoted to developing the bio-fuel industry for the benefit of Vietnamese rural poor.

2.Private – Includes GEV investments to retain its ‘First Mover’ advantage by securing its proprietary feedstocks, expanding its physical plant refinery presence and continuing to build its integrated supply-chain, complete with forward contracted suppliers and customers.

It is in this first arena, Public Initiatives, that GreenEnergy sees co-operation with aid agencies.

Some of the substantial and sustainable benefits that the cultivation of bio-fuels crops can contribute to Vietnam are:
1. Real cash growth, raising the annual income of $820 to $1,300 U.S. for thousands of marginalized rural families.

2. Private homesteading for the rural poor.

3. Stress relief and barren or war damaged land reclamation.

4. Enfranchisement of poor, rural women.

5. Retention of scarce foreign currency reserves and
6. Independence from the uncertainties of global mineral oil markets.

The People`s Committee of the Province of Binh Dinh and GreenEnergy, Vietnam, in full realization of the enormous impact this Research and Training Facility will have for all of Vietnam`s rural communities, cordially
invites any and all organizations seeking positive change in the livelihood of rural Vietnamese to form an active Partnership in the development of this Research and Training Facility.

The Binh Dinh Facility wants to be a catalyst in harnessing this opportunity for all stakeholders and delivering:

. A path for the rural poor to climb out of their deprivation rather than fall further behind.

. A renewable, sustainable and viable alternative to fossil fuel for Vietnam’s surging economy and an industry that rejuvenates, rather than degrades the environment.

Introduction to the oil plant Jatropha.

The oil plant Jatrophas curcas (L) (Jatropha) or physic nut, is multipurpose and drought resistant, growing to a height range of 2 to 7 metres for the Asian species and it not only flourishes in tropical and sub-tropical climate zones but even in areas absent of water.

Because its leaves and stems are toxic to animals it is often used as a protective hedge around farm houses, gardens and fields.

It also reduces soil damage caused by erosion from wind and water and traditionally the seeds were harvested by women for medical treatments and local soap production.

In Thailand, Jatropha normally flowers twice a year, in dry and rainy seasons with seed harvesting conducted approximately 60-90 days after flowering and the oil plant has a productive life of 20 years.

Because the market is probably not yet mature enough for the plant to generate enough income solely from oil extraction, a holistic rural development approach has to be taken into account in order to exploit all potential uses of the Jatropha plant. This approach is known as the Jatropha System.

The system focuses not only on the use of the source as a fuel, but rather as an element, to activate a system combining ecologic, economic and income generating activities.

Consequently, the Jatropha System offers four main aspects of development aiming to better the livelihoods in rural areas, especially for women and farmers:

. Renewable energy- bio-diesel

. Erosion control and soil improvement

. Promotion of women and

. Income generation.

About one-third of seeds can be extracted as oil that has a similar energy value to diesel fuel. The oil is extracted by hydraulic pressure and then filtered through an intensive sleeve that can then be readily used without any complicated refinery process, directly available for small diesel engines as a substitution for
diesel oil, without engine modification.

This oil can power engines, such as water pumps, tractors, hand mowers, other farm machinery and rice milling machines and by using this domestically produced oil as a substitution for imported oil, significant cash
savings can be made.

GreenEnergy Ltd have already committed a considerable amount of time, money and resources to this environmentally sound an economically sustainable project in Vietnam and welcome further input from other interested parties.

It is also their belief that at an international level, stakeholders involved should perform a three pronged approach, with mutual knowledge, technology transfer, genetic development of high oil content in the seeds and exchange of Jatropha species, together with investment and trade linkage.

Wind farms are incredibly productive, as anything that combines a singular might will be. However, there is still a place for the individual wind turbine being used to power a specific area. One wind turbine alone can generate a lot of electricity. For example, a singular wind turbine in Reading, England generates enough power to satisfy the electricity demands of 1,000 homes nearby.

Individual wind turbines also have an advantage over wind farms in that they do not require a lot of space. Numerous wind turbines combined to create a wind farm will require acres of land on which to erect the turbines and their electricity generators; just one wind turbine obviously only needs a fraction of this space. For this reason, individual wind turbines are being considered a viable solution for urban areas, where there is not enough floor space to erect anything more than a singular turbine.

While it is unlikely the future includes the idea of every street having its own wind turbine generating close-by electricity, the idea of individual wind turbines is growing. We could well see a day when town planning includes the usual wind turbine to generate electricity, and from an environmental point of view alone, this is wonderful progress.

The most common type of wind farm is the onshore wind farm. This essentially means where each wind turbine is anchored into land, usually on a grassy field or high on a hillside. Other forms of wind farms are possible; offshore wind farms are built in the sea, and airborne and near water wind farms are also increasingly common.

The reason for the onshore wind farm’s popularity is that they are easy to construct when compared with other options. Materials can be brought to the site, and while the transportation is expensive. When the component parts have arrived at the wind farm location, from there the erection of each turbine is relatively simple by modern engineering standards. Cranes are most typically used to winch the blades into place.

Onshore wind farms are most typically built in rural areas, though some cities are now building them close to urban areas. For example, a new wind farm in Glasgow, Scotland is only 20 miles from the centre of the city. While there are some aesthetic issues – particularly with local residents – this close proximity to where electricity is needed most means onshore wind farms can be extremely productive.

The reason for this is simple: offshore, the wind is more powerful as it is not obstructed by surface objects. Particularly in deep water, the resistance on the surface of the water is minimal, and the wind can be extremely powerful. This was, of course, once utilised by sailing ships before the days of the engine, and this wind power is now finding a new purpose.

Offshore wind farms are built, as the name would suggest, in the sea. Turbines that look exactly the same as their onshore counterparts are erected into the sea bed, and protrude above the water line, with their blades in the open air catching the powerful winds. The energy generated is then transported back to shore using under sea pipes. It is a simple case of: more wind, more power generated.

These wind farms are more expensive to construct than typical onshore wind farms, as they involve placing the base of the turbine in the sea bed. This initial cost and workload is, however, rewarded by increased efficiency. The job is also made easier by offshore wind farms being built on areas of ocean that have naturally raised sections of the sea bed.

Offshore wind farms also solve the associated humanist issues with turbines – such as noise levels, shadow flight and aesthetic issues – and increase electricity production. Once more, man turns to the sea for its answers.

Wind turbines are usually painted white, so they seemingly blend with surrounding cloud. This, however, is what makes them such hazards to birds; who may not notice the turbines until they are fatally close to the revolving blades.

Statistics show that the effect wind turbines have on birds is negligible. That is, wind energy from turbines is no more costly to bird welfare than other forms of renewable energy production (such as nuclear power) and is actually 20 times less dangerous than traditional fossil fuel production plants.

While birds are safe, it is becoming apparent that bats are not. Nocturnal and blind, winged bats are becoming the silent victims of wind turbines as their usual navigational tools which help them avoid collisions are interupted by the rotating blades.

As well as collisions, bats have to deal with the low pressure caused by wind turbine tips. If they are lucky enough to avoid colliding with the tips themselves, the low pressure generated can cause a condition known as barotrauma. Bats lungs are damaged by exposure to this low pressure, and it can be fatal. Birds have more robust lungs and are not effected by this condition.

So while birds are doing well with wind farms, further research is required on the effects on the bat population. The most obvious solution is placing radar transmitters on top of turbines; bats avoid these, as they trigger their sonar navigational systems.