The cost of our current ways of living have only just started to come to light.
Drought creeps across central U.S. with no relief in sight
"Amazingly, even with the colossal devastation from Superstorm Sandy in the Northeast, it's the drought that could do the most damage to the U.S. economy. 'Sandy's damages of perhaps $50 billion will likely be overshadowed by the huge costs of the great drought of 2012,' Masters reported."
We need drastic changes in how we do things if we have a hope of coming out of this period with a high quality of life for all.
150 miles of electric car range for under $10,000?
"Kleenspeed, which earlier this year set an electric car speed record in its EV-X11 at Laguna Seca in California, recently unveiled its KAR GT prototype at the San Francisco International Auto Show. The design is based upon the company's GenESSys Energy Storage System, which Autoweek reports could be up to 40 kWh of batteries, which is enough energy storage reportedly for the claimed 150 miles of range."
Or, better yet, maybe we can start rethinking our needs and behaviors to use less of everything.
Factoring in commuting costs
"Scott Bernstein, the president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago, argues that transportation costs are quantifiable enough that they ought to be factored into underwriting. And they were, during the first half of the last decade, in an experiment the center conducted jointly with Fannie Mae. Called a 'Location-Efficient Mortgage,' the product was a contrasting proposition to the 'drive till you qualify' strategy of finding an affordable home. The mortgage compensated borrowers applying to buy in areas with lots of transportation choices, and close to jobs and amenities."
We may even find other opportunities to use more natural methods of energy transfer to power our lives.
Spain expands renewables with wave-powered electricity plant
"Now, this town's few thousand residents have a small beach that's protected from raucous waves that roll in off the Bay of Biscay. They can stroll down a pier and out over the breakwater. And hidden underneath their feet, Spanish scientists like Gloria Etxebarria are busy generating electricity from these powerful waves.
'The government decided to build a breakwater to protect the harbor of Mutriku. And so making use of that decision, we decided to put there our wave energy plant,' Etxebarria says."
We also will learn better how our communities support us and provide us the best opportunity to survive.
Despite ruin, library offers books and community
"The Rockaways still look like ghost towns. But the community libraries are there — if only in the form of a bus, parked in front of the gutted, muddy Peninsula branch. Days after the storm laid waste to four Queens Borough Public Library branches in the Rockaways, a colorful mobile library bus has hummed just outside its former location on Rockaway Beach Boulevard, offering warmth, power outlets, emergency information and books."
Happy Friday!
Friday, November 30, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Request Monday (11/26/2012): You are what you think you're eating...
"We had a discussion at the Thanksgiving table about 'free range' livestock versus 'factory farmed' and could not settle on whether there was any difference. Should we be concerned about any of them?"
The "factory farming" you refer to is called animal feeding operations (AFO), whereby nutrients are brought to animals and waste removed from their vicinity, but they do not move. Depending on the size and nature of the operation, such operations may meet criteria set by the EPA for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO). These types of operations can have a deleterious effect on the environment (although some sources note that overall environmental benefit can occur), and can produce meat products whose quality has come into question.
On the environmental front, the primary concern comes from the pollution in the waste stream. Manure and fecal waste from these operations carry into local water sources, and bring nitrogen, bacteria and other pathogens, ammonia, and other sources of pollution. This pollution not only poses a direct threat to human health, but can severely damage watersheds by causing fish kills and algae blooms. In addition to this threat to water, CAFO can affect land and air quality as well. Concentrated methane sourcing from the livestock, particulates, bacteria, fungi, and odors form a short list of local and global air quality issues that can result from CAFO. The same pollutants found in the air and water can also contaminate the soils on both the site of the operation as well as downstream of the source. (For more details see this Iowa Public Health report as well as this CDC report.) In addition to the pollution issue, with all the droughts across the Midwest this past summer, the concentration of such animal raising operations creates greater strain on local water resources in the areas they occupy. With the significant water requirements for raising livestock, this can significantly tax local economies and watersheds alike.
With regard to human health, research at California State University has suggested that pasture-raised meat (with more grass feeding) has higher nutrient content than grain-fed meat. CAFO animals receive feed as a slurry of grains (and sometimes even candy), which may decrease the nutrient quality even further. In addition, the animals receive regimens of antibiotics instead of treatment as needed, affecting the chemical content of the meat. Lastly, the working conditions inside CAFO resemble that of any large-scale manufacturing operation. The CAFO study by the University of Iowa addressed those concerns as well. These concerns, along with others raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggest that the lower cost of CAFO meat (from the economy of scale of production) may shift the cost burden to human and environmental health issues not accounted in the business model.
One last concern comes from some proposals within the corporate food world to hide CAFO operations from public viewing. The thought is that if people see the way in which the meat is raised, they may not want to eat it. One such law passed in Iowa earlier this year, and combined with the "veggie libel laws", could make it harder and harder to people to get a real sense of how their food is made.
So what of the options? You accurately identify "free range" as one moniker for livestock that has not grown in AFO plants. Another, "cage-free" has some concerns because the name notes that the animal did not grow up in a cage, but that does not mean they were not raised in a concentrated setting. In general, if you have concerns about the quality of CAFO-raised livestock, or want to wait for more research into the health and nutrition effects, you will want to look for meat that is "free range" and "grass fed". Better yet, find local farmers in your community and visit their operations, then find out where they sell their meat. We belong to a CSA (community supported agriculture) that sells eggs as part of our membership, but others also have access to meat products. The more you know about who raises your food, plus where and how they raise it, the more informed decisions you can make.
Although it may be an issue for another day, one last option is to eliminate meat altogether. With a high energy and water content, we cannot hope to supply the meat-centered diet of the average American to a world population of 10 billion people. Even reducing meat by one-half could significantly lower your environmental footprint.
- Alison from Maryland -
The "factory farming" you refer to is called animal feeding operations (AFO), whereby nutrients are brought to animals and waste removed from their vicinity, but they do not move. Depending on the size and nature of the operation, such operations may meet criteria set by the EPA for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO). These types of operations can have a deleterious effect on the environment (although some sources note that overall environmental benefit can occur), and can produce meat products whose quality has come into question.
On the environmental front, the primary concern comes from the pollution in the waste stream. Manure and fecal waste from these operations carry into local water sources, and bring nitrogen, bacteria and other pathogens, ammonia, and other sources of pollution. This pollution not only poses a direct threat to human health, but can severely damage watersheds by causing fish kills and algae blooms. In addition to this threat to water, CAFO can affect land and air quality as well. Concentrated methane sourcing from the livestock, particulates, bacteria, fungi, and odors form a short list of local and global air quality issues that can result from CAFO. The same pollutants found in the air and water can also contaminate the soils on both the site of the operation as well as downstream of the source. (For more details see this Iowa Public Health report as well as this CDC report.) In addition to the pollution issue, with all the droughts across the Midwest this past summer, the concentration of such animal raising operations creates greater strain on local water resources in the areas they occupy. With the significant water requirements for raising livestock, this can significantly tax local economies and watersheds alike.
With regard to human health, research at California State University has suggested that pasture-raised meat (with more grass feeding) has higher nutrient content than grain-fed meat. CAFO animals receive feed as a slurry of grains (and sometimes even candy), which may decrease the nutrient quality even further. In addition, the animals receive regimens of antibiotics instead of treatment as needed, affecting the chemical content of the meat. Lastly, the working conditions inside CAFO resemble that of any large-scale manufacturing operation. The CAFO study by the University of Iowa addressed those concerns as well. These concerns, along with others raised by the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggest that the lower cost of CAFO meat (from the economy of scale of production) may shift the cost burden to human and environmental health issues not accounted in the business model.
One last concern comes from some proposals within the corporate food world to hide CAFO operations from public viewing. The thought is that if people see the way in which the meat is raised, they may not want to eat it. One such law passed in Iowa earlier this year, and combined with the "veggie libel laws", could make it harder and harder to people to get a real sense of how their food is made.
So what of the options? You accurately identify "free range" as one moniker for livestock that has not grown in AFO plants. Another, "cage-free" has some concerns because the name notes that the animal did not grow up in a cage, but that does not mean they were not raised in a concentrated setting. In general, if you have concerns about the quality of CAFO-raised livestock, or want to wait for more research into the health and nutrition effects, you will want to look for meat that is "free range" and "grass fed". Better yet, find local farmers in your community and visit their operations, then find out where they sell their meat. We belong to a CSA (community supported agriculture) that sells eggs as part of our membership, but others also have access to meat products. The more you know about who raises your food, plus where and how they raise it, the more informed decisions you can make.
Although it may be an issue for another day, one last option is to eliminate meat altogether. With a high energy and water content, we cannot hope to supply the meat-centered diet of the average American to a world population of 10 billion people. Even reducing meat by one-half could significantly lower your environmental footprint.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Friday Five: November 23, 2012
Over the last month, it has become both economically and politically possible to state that global climate change not only threatens our quality of life, but it has already started to degrade it.
It's global warming stupid
"The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that."
Not only will climate change most devastate the poorest among the world more than any other portion of the population, but the worst polluters have already begun to hurt people right here in our country.
Do coal plants really kill people?
"But while politicians have been busy obscuring their views on coal, public health researchers have been accumulating ever clearer data. Emissions from coal-fired power plants and other coal-burning sources have been linked to neurological and developmental deficits in children, a worsening of asthma, and cardiovascular disease and other health woes. Coal-burning is bad, bad, bad for your health—and looking ahead, the best we can hope for is that it will get marginally better."
Even as coal plants become more economically unviable - in spite of significant external subsidies....
Ripe for retirement: The case for closing America's costliest coal plants
"A significant number of U.S. coal-fired generators are old, inefficient, dirty, and no longer economically competitive. Simply stated, they are ripe for retirement and should be considered for closure."
We learn that the example we have set for the world means that other countries will look past the harm coal causes as long as they can try to achieve development through electrification.
More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
"Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world's biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade."
There is hope from an unlikely source...the corporate sector. We have already seen that the military sees the danger in climate change, and now big business has seen the negative impact to the bottom line.
CDP: More big businesses see risks from climate change
"'Extreme weather events are causing significant financial damage to markets,' said Paul Simpson, CEO of the CDP. 'Investors therefore expect corporations to think more about climate resilience,' he said. 'There are still leaders and laggards but the economic driver for action is growing, as is the number of investors requesting emissions data. Governments seeking to build strong economies should take note.'"
Happy Friday!
It's global warming stupid
"The broadening consensus: “Climate change amps up other basic factors that contribute to big storms. For example, the oceans have warmed, providing more energy for storms. And the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed, so it retains more moisture, which is drawn into storms and is then dumped on us.” Even those of us who are science-phobic can get the gist of that."
Not only will climate change most devastate the poorest among the world more than any other portion of the population, but the worst polluters have already begun to hurt people right here in our country.
Do coal plants really kill people?
"But while politicians have been busy obscuring their views on coal, public health researchers have been accumulating ever clearer data. Emissions from coal-fired power plants and other coal-burning sources have been linked to neurological and developmental deficits in children, a worsening of asthma, and cardiovascular disease and other health woes. Coal-burning is bad, bad, bad for your health—and looking ahead, the best we can hope for is that it will get marginally better."
Even as coal plants become more economically unviable - in spite of significant external subsidies....
Ripe for retirement: The case for closing America's costliest coal plants
"A significant number of U.S. coal-fired generators are old, inefficient, dirty, and no longer economically competitive. Simply stated, they are ripe for retirement and should be considered for closure."
We learn that the example we have set for the world means that other countries will look past the harm coal causes as long as they can try to achieve development through electrification.
More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
"Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world's biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade."
There is hope from an unlikely source...the corporate sector. We have already seen that the military sees the danger in climate change, and now big business has seen the negative impact to the bottom line.
CDP: More big businesses see risks from climate change
"'Extreme weather events are causing significant financial damage to markets,' said Paul Simpson, CEO of the CDP. 'Investors therefore expect corporations to think more about climate resilience,' he said. 'There are still leaders and laggards but the economic driver for action is growing, as is the number of investors requesting emissions data. Governments seeking to build strong economies should take note.'"
Happy Friday!
Monday, November 19, 2012
Request Monday (11/19/2012): Too much light....
"I read a recent study that noted that compact fluorescent light bulbs could cause cancer because of the way they are made. Is this true, and if so, should I get rid of all of them in my apartment? What do I replace them with if incandescents are going away?"
The journal Photochemistry and Photobiology did publish such a study earlier this year entitled The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes In Vitro which found that healthy skin cells responded to ultra-violet radiation from cracks in compact fluorescent light bulbs in the same fashion that they respond to radiation from sunlight. When added to the risk of mercury exposure associated with compact fluorescent lightbulbs, it would sound like the risk would outweigh the benefit that comes from the energy efficiency associated with the use of the bulb. Although this study does highlight a new concern that the industry must address, it does not spell the death knell for CFL technology, nor should it force a wholesale removal of such bulbs from your living space.
The first reason has to do with the analysis of the study. The authors examined several "off the shelf" bulbs and found that almost every one had damage to the phosphor surface coating that offers protection from the radiation contained within the bulb when electricity excites the gas to produce light. That damage caused the opportunity for leakage of radiation, however the impact of that radiation causes issues only up to about two feet from the bulb. Also, it came from a direct line of sight to the coiled lamp. In our house, most of the CFL we have left (we have started switching over to LED - light emitting diode - technology since our CFL are finally reaching the end of their 7-year life) are either contained within another bulb casing , are under a lamp-shade, or are at the ceiling level. If you have similar installations, then the risk is greatly reduced or eliminated. You should note that the study found the issue only with the coiled CFL and not with fluorescent bulbs in general. The coiling of the bulb is what caused the cracking, so standard bulbs - such as the ones we find in every office building in the country - should be fine.
The second reason has to do with personal choice. The study likens the exposure to that from sunlight. If you are the kind of person who wears sunscreen every day when you are outside, then you should review all of the installations in your living space that do not meet one of the criteria discussed in the previous paragraph and look to either replace the bulb or install some form of shield. If you regularly go outside without sunscreen, then you are exposing yourself to less risk in your house unless you regularly sit for long periods of time less than two feet from your bulb in which case you have about the same risk.
The final reason has to do with what I like to call a "transference of risk". This ties also to the risk of mercury exposure from broken CFL. "Transference of risk" has to do with trying to eliminate a direct risk to us in our immediate lives by choosing an alternative that decreases our risk but increases the risk of decreased health to another. In this situation, if we used a less efficient bulb (like an incandescent - which has neither the mercury or UV radiation concerns), we would eliminate the risk to us, but would increase the need for electricity generation (by as much as triple that needed for CFL). Currently, the largest portion of our electricity generation comes from nuclear, natural gas, and coal, so increased use of either will mean either more coal emissions/mining, natural gas drilling, or more nuclear waste...all of which have serious implications for those living near those operations. Our goal as a country (even without formal policy) should be to limit those types of generation in favor of ones less damaging. If we have to keep these life-harming plants on and available, then we threaten other people's quality of life to the benefit of our own. Having the "risk" in our immediate life puts us in a position where we have to think about taking responsibility for our actions in such a way as to limit both our risk, and that of others.
What should you do?
First, do an inventory of each bulb in your apartment. In that, note the type of bulb, the application (general lighting vs. specific task lighting, such as for reading), the lumens (if you can find it...lumens is a measure of the light output), color temperature (warm or cold...usually available on most packaging for bulbs), and Watts. As a last column, if the package does not have it, compute the lumens per Watt for the bulb; this is important, because when considering to replace a bulb, you will want to keep the lumens per Watt the same or at least close.
Second, look to replace every incandescent bulb with another technology, if you already have not. Halogen provides the same type of light quality as incandescent for reading, but uses energy at higher levels than CFL. LED make good task lighting, such as for under-cabinet lighting in kitchens or above sinks in bathrooms. CFL have a wide range of applications, and are usually the best overall bang for the buck.
Third, make sure that where you use CFL, you have either a diffuser (such as the glass bowl under a ceiling fan), shade, or other layer of protection from the coiled bulb. If there is a situation where you absolutely cannot avoid a bare bulb, and the bulb will be within two feet of an occupant, consider the Phillips or Sylvania LED bulb. They do cost significantly more, but they last three times as long. Be careful to compare the lumen per Watt rating to make sure you maintain the energy savings as the reduced cost of owning the bulb helps to offset the first cost of buying it.
Lastly, consider looking into purchasing renewable energy for the electricity supply in your home. We will have nuclear and natural gas generated electricity for the near future, but we can accelerate the installation of renewable, less damaging resources if we make a concerted effort. Take some of the money saved by using less energy, and use it to purchase better energy in the form of a direct purchase from a generator (depending on where you live), negotiating the purchase through a broker, or through renewable energy certificates. If you choose renewable energy certificates, make sure they are certified by someone like Green-e, and that they are for "new generation". This will mitigate the "transference of risk", while keeping your future plenty bright.
-Tracie from Lincoln Park-
The journal Photochemistry and Photobiology did publish such a study earlier this year entitled The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes In Vitro which found that healthy skin cells responded to ultra-violet radiation from cracks in compact fluorescent light bulbs in the same fashion that they respond to radiation from sunlight. When added to the risk of mercury exposure associated with compact fluorescent lightbulbs, it would sound like the risk would outweigh the benefit that comes from the energy efficiency associated with the use of the bulb. Although this study does highlight a new concern that the industry must address, it does not spell the death knell for CFL technology, nor should it force a wholesale removal of such bulbs from your living space.
The first reason has to do with the analysis of the study. The authors examined several "off the shelf" bulbs and found that almost every one had damage to the phosphor surface coating that offers protection from the radiation contained within the bulb when electricity excites the gas to produce light. That damage caused the opportunity for leakage of radiation, however the impact of that radiation causes issues only up to about two feet from the bulb. Also, it came from a direct line of sight to the coiled lamp. In our house, most of the CFL we have left (we have started switching over to LED - light emitting diode - technology since our CFL are finally reaching the end of their 7-year life) are either contained within another bulb casing , are under a lamp-shade, or are at the ceiling level. If you have similar installations, then the risk is greatly reduced or eliminated. You should note that the study found the issue only with the coiled CFL and not with fluorescent bulbs in general. The coiling of the bulb is what caused the cracking, so standard bulbs - such as the ones we find in every office building in the country - should be fine.
The second reason has to do with personal choice. The study likens the exposure to that from sunlight. If you are the kind of person who wears sunscreen every day when you are outside, then you should review all of the installations in your living space that do not meet one of the criteria discussed in the previous paragraph and look to either replace the bulb or install some form of shield. If you regularly go outside without sunscreen, then you are exposing yourself to less risk in your house unless you regularly sit for long periods of time less than two feet from your bulb in which case you have about the same risk.
The final reason has to do with what I like to call a "transference of risk". This ties also to the risk of mercury exposure from broken CFL. "Transference of risk" has to do with trying to eliminate a direct risk to us in our immediate lives by choosing an alternative that decreases our risk but increases the risk of decreased health to another. In this situation, if we used a less efficient bulb (like an incandescent - which has neither the mercury or UV radiation concerns), we would eliminate the risk to us, but would increase the need for electricity generation (by as much as triple that needed for CFL). Currently, the largest portion of our electricity generation comes from nuclear, natural gas, and coal, so increased use of either will mean either more coal emissions/mining, natural gas drilling, or more nuclear waste...all of which have serious implications for those living near those operations. Our goal as a country (even without formal policy) should be to limit those types of generation in favor of ones less damaging. If we have to keep these life-harming plants on and available, then we threaten other people's quality of life to the benefit of our own. Having the "risk" in our immediate life puts us in a position where we have to think about taking responsibility for our actions in such a way as to limit both our risk, and that of others.
What should you do?
First, do an inventory of each bulb in your apartment. In that, note the type of bulb, the application (general lighting vs. specific task lighting, such as for reading), the lumens (if you can find it...lumens is a measure of the light output), color temperature (warm or cold...usually available on most packaging for bulbs), and Watts. As a last column, if the package does not have it, compute the lumens per Watt for the bulb; this is important, because when considering to replace a bulb, you will want to keep the lumens per Watt the same or at least close.
Second, look to replace every incandescent bulb with another technology, if you already have not. Halogen provides the same type of light quality as incandescent for reading, but uses energy at higher levels than CFL. LED make good task lighting, such as for under-cabinet lighting in kitchens or above sinks in bathrooms. CFL have a wide range of applications, and are usually the best overall bang for the buck.
Third, make sure that where you use CFL, you have either a diffuser (such as the glass bowl under a ceiling fan), shade, or other layer of protection from the coiled bulb. If there is a situation where you absolutely cannot avoid a bare bulb, and the bulb will be within two feet of an occupant, consider the Phillips or Sylvania LED bulb. They do cost significantly more, but they last three times as long. Be careful to compare the lumen per Watt rating to make sure you maintain the energy savings as the reduced cost of owning the bulb helps to offset the first cost of buying it.
Lastly, consider looking into purchasing renewable energy for the electricity supply in your home. We will have nuclear and natural gas generated electricity for the near future, but we can accelerate the installation of renewable, less damaging resources if we make a concerted effort. Take some of the money saved by using less energy, and use it to purchase better energy in the form of a direct purchase from a generator (depending on where you live), negotiating the purchase through a broker, or through renewable energy certificates. If you choose renewable energy certificates, make sure they are certified by someone like Green-e, and that they are for "new generation". This will mitigate the "transference of risk", while keeping your future plenty bright.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Friday Five: November 9, 2012
This week's election not only brought about a second term for an incumbent President and another divided Congress, but also some interesting ballot initiatives and some referenda on industries supporting certain candidates. In California, one measure to reform tax loopholes and use part of the additional revenue for energy efficiency won out...
Investor's political stock rises with second win
"Steyer crafted Proposition 39 so the money would be split between the state general fund and energy efficiency programs for the first five years. Democratic leaders endorsed the measure after they failed to get the loophole closed through the Legislature."
While candidates supported by a suddenly reeling coal industry had troubles that could lead to the adoption of a bi-partisan approach to solving climate issues through sound market forces.
Coal's election loss could mean gain for carbon tax
"It looks as if the U.S. may be uniting around an increasingly realistic view of the health, environmental and climate costs of burning coal. Add in the economic forces acting against coal at a time of low natural-gas prices, and there’s reason to think policy makers might now be encouraged to enact a tax on carbon emissions as part of a broader tax-reform package to help reduce the deficit."
Not all measures that made social and economic sense were able to pass, for as we learned yet again, one of the problems with a market economy is that it always favors incumbent industries over those seeking to reform or to replace. Even better ideas or solutions do not win out...only less expensive or better funded ones.
What we can learn from California's attempt to label GMOs
Does Michigan's clean energy loss mean greens are outgunned at the state level?
"You could even argue that the whole process was more about “sending a message” to food companies and politicians than it was about making sound policy. This is not to deny that passage of Prop 37 would have taken the food movement to a whole new level. But failing to get the initiative passed in California is far from a sign of significant political weakness, much less irrelevance."
"Opposing money wasn’t the only obstacle for Prop 3, of course. Five of the six initiatives on the ballot — the five aiming to amend the state constitution — were rejected by similar margins. It may be that Michigan voters simply became suspicious of all efforts to meddle with the constitution.
And it may be that they got sick of outside money flooding the state. Some $141 million was spent on ballot initiatives in the state this year — more than was spent on all Michigan races combined in 2010 — and from all reports the advertisements were incessant and annoying."
Regardless of the tool used to try to win political battles to move environmental issues to the forefront, this week taught us that lawmakers can no longer debate IF we should act...only HOW we should act.
Heat is on Congress
"Continued indifference to the issue of climate change is a prescription for failure. More than 100 scientists and public officials implored President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney to address the threat of rising sea levels during their final debate last month, but the issue did not arise.
Residents of the Great Lakes region may feel insulated from any need to reinforce South Florida and Louisiana coastlines because of higher sea levels. Yet the billions of dollars it would cost to do this would affect all taxpayers.
Mr. Obama appeared ready to make major inroads on climate change during his first two years in office. Yet he has said too little about the matter since the Republican victory in the 2010 election."
Because, as I have often said, the economic issues are a man-made concern...one that can be manipulated by the powerful for their own agenda. The consequences of inaction come from nature, and once nature is forced to respond, we have no say in the form and strength of that response.
Sandy's punch proves truth will out
"When elected officials fail to face the facts and deny the science underlying that reality, they delay, and perhaps permanently block, the best means to help their communities cope with future weather events and other natural disasters.
These examples would be funny if all they did was provide grist for late-night comedy shows. But here’s the problem: Softening the language or changing the words we use can often obscure what the problem actually is."
Happy Friday!
Investor's political stock rises with second win
"Steyer crafted Proposition 39 so the money would be split between the state general fund and energy efficiency programs for the first five years. Democratic leaders endorsed the measure after they failed to get the loophole closed through the Legislature."
While candidates supported by a suddenly reeling coal industry had troubles that could lead to the adoption of a bi-partisan approach to solving climate issues through sound market forces.
Coal's election loss could mean gain for carbon tax
"It looks as if the U.S. may be uniting around an increasingly realistic view of the health, environmental and climate costs of burning coal. Add in the economic forces acting against coal at a time of low natural-gas prices, and there’s reason to think policy makers might now be encouraged to enact a tax on carbon emissions as part of a broader tax-reform package to help reduce the deficit."
Not all measures that made social and economic sense were able to pass, for as we learned yet again, one of the problems with a market economy is that it always favors incumbent industries over those seeking to reform or to replace. Even better ideas or solutions do not win out...only less expensive or better funded ones.
What we can learn from California's attempt to label GMOs
Does Michigan's clean energy loss mean greens are outgunned at the state level?
"You could even argue that the whole process was more about “sending a message” to food companies and politicians than it was about making sound policy. This is not to deny that passage of Prop 37 would have taken the food movement to a whole new level. But failing to get the initiative passed in California is far from a sign of significant political weakness, much less irrelevance."
"Opposing money wasn’t the only obstacle for Prop 3, of course. Five of the six initiatives on the ballot — the five aiming to amend the state constitution — were rejected by similar margins. It may be that Michigan voters simply became suspicious of all efforts to meddle with the constitution.
And it may be that they got sick of outside money flooding the state. Some $141 million was spent on ballot initiatives in the state this year — more than was spent on all Michigan races combined in 2010 — and from all reports the advertisements were incessant and annoying."
Regardless of the tool used to try to win political battles to move environmental issues to the forefront, this week taught us that lawmakers can no longer debate IF we should act...only HOW we should act.
Heat is on Congress
"Continued indifference to the issue of climate change is a prescription for failure. More than 100 scientists and public officials implored President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney to address the threat of rising sea levels during their final debate last month, but the issue did not arise.
Residents of the Great Lakes region may feel insulated from any need to reinforce South Florida and Louisiana coastlines because of higher sea levels. Yet the billions of dollars it would cost to do this would affect all taxpayers.
Mr. Obama appeared ready to make major inroads on climate change during his first two years in office. Yet he has said too little about the matter since the Republican victory in the 2010 election."
Because, as I have often said, the economic issues are a man-made concern...one that can be manipulated by the powerful for their own agenda. The consequences of inaction come from nature, and once nature is forced to respond, we have no say in the form and strength of that response.
Sandy's punch proves truth will out
"When elected officials fail to face the facts and deny the science underlying that reality, they delay, and perhaps permanently block, the best means to help their communities cope with future weather events and other natural disasters.
These examples would be funny if all they did was provide grist for late-night comedy shows. But here’s the problem: Softening the language or changing the words we use can often obscure what the problem actually is."
Happy Friday!
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Adding Light Spotlight: Municipal Aggregation
The Adding Light Spotlight highlights people or organizations working to make our communities stronger, more resilient, and safer for our improved quality of life. Through the Spotlight, I hope to demonstrate that EVERYONE does not have to do EVERYTHING to make our world better as long as EVERYONE does SOMETHING.
Yesterday, a referendum passed in the City of Chicago to allow the City to negotiate the price of electricity for all of its residents and small businesses. This aggregation comes on the heels of dozens of other Illinois municipalities going through the same process and getting lower rates than they can get through the local utility, ComEd. It was good to see so much of the electorate participate (of the 1,364,371 registered voters, 846,698 voted one way or the other on the referendum), and with a noticeable but not overwhelming majority (56%) choosing to allow the City to negotiate, hopefully this will lead those in charge to pursue the measure transparently.
Midwest Energy News has a great piece today discussing many of the details of aggregation. There are four main points for everyone to understand as we head into this:
Cost Savings
The major motivator for pursuing aggregation, and the primary reason most municipalities pursue it, is cost savings. Most people do not realize that over the past decade-plus, the electricity market was deregulated...meaning that the company that connects the wires to your home became separated from the company that generates the electricity tens to hundreds of miles away. This made it easy for large companies and institutions (like the City on behalf of the buildings it owns and operates) to select among many suppliers to find the right price. For small businesses and residents, ComEd would negotiate prices, with an emphasis on reliability of price and service. They negotiated several years out to make sure they could deliver a consistent price to customers rather than entering shorter-more volatile contracts. When the State of Illinois created the Illinois Power Agency, it created a state entity to handle this negotiation, and as ComEd contracts are winding down, it looks to lower prices. That will not happen until after May of next year, so in the meantime, cities have been able (under a separate law) to negotiate on behalf of its citizens if the citizens elect for them to do so. If the city planned (like Chicago) to set up a deal where a resident would have to choose NOT to participate (known as "opt-out"), then the election had to take place as a referendum. If the city planned to offer a program that residents could choose to enter at will (or "opt-in"), then that election could be city/town/village council vote. Chicago chose the former. With this power, the City can now try to find pricing for the citizens that is less than the previous long-term pricing from ComEd (that will drop in June 2013) and hopefully better than the new pricing available next summer.
One concern in this is that after May 2013, if the City deal does not represent the best price, consumers have a chance to opt out at that time, but it is not clear how they will know. Part of the selling point of aggregation is that by aggregating they get a better deal and the City can negotiate. That takes the concern out of some people's minds, and once they are in the City deal it may be no more a part of what they worry about than the utility bills currently are. It is great that people get reduced price, but once they get the reduced price for six months, the City will need to come up with a plan to help educate consumers in order to keep them from losing the down the road savings by staying in the City deal if it is not their best option.
Renewable Energy
One interesting ramification of decreasing the unit cost of electricity to consumers through aggregation is what happens to that savings. Does all of it get passed onto consumers? Is it used to change the quality of the commodity purchased? Does the aggregator take some of the savings as part of a fee for its service? These are all questions that remain to be answered by the City, and which will be interesting to see. Entities like the Environmental Law and Policy Center have pushed for support of aggregation on the grounds that the City can use the aggregation to improve the mix of supply sources, and provide more environmentally beneficial electricity. Reportedly, the City did include a request for pricing on the mix of energy in the Request for Qualifications it sent out prior to the referendum. (The RFQ will determine which suppliers will be allowed to bid on the actual supply contract when it becomes available.) This does not necessarily mean that the City will accept a certain mix, or even that the mix will include renewables. One concern is that if it does include renewables, that may take the form of renewable energy certificates in a short-term contract. Although this provides a level of pride to the consumer, it does not actually result in the development of new renewable energy, but rather, as one of the consultants to the City - Mark Pruitt - has said, "It pays for existing operators to pay to cut the grass." Hopefully, early next year, the Illinois state legislature figures out a way to reconcile the municipal aggregation law with the renewable portfolio standard to help these short-term purchase contracts lead to the installation of new, Illinois renewable energy.
Energy Efficiency
The municipal aggregation law requires a plan for energy efficiency, and the Sustainable Chicago 2015 plan accounts for that. One way the City may choose to help pursue efficiency is to take some of the savings and use it for projects throughout the city. The question that arises is how the City would manage that fund, and how transparent this process would be. The utilities in Chicago already have energy efficiency programs, so I would hope that the City - if it chooses to pursue this option - would use an energy efficiency fund to make it even easier for residents and small businesses to take advantage of utility programs and leverage more resources.
Fees
Lastly, it will be interesting to see how much of the savings gets "eaten away" by fees for the supplier, brokers, and the City. It will be incumbent upon watchdogs to make sure that as much of the savings gets passed on directly to consumers either in the way of money in their pocket or reductions in their energy bills.
As with anything in Chicago, Illinois, getting the local government involved in a part of our lives gives us pause. Residents and small businesses have choices, so on one level it helps that we can aggregate and have one less very confusing issue about which to worry. On another level, we need to make sure that every penny of the savings comes back to our communities in one way or another.
Yesterday, a referendum passed in the City of Chicago to allow the City to negotiate the price of electricity for all of its residents and small businesses. This aggregation comes on the heels of dozens of other Illinois municipalities going through the same process and getting lower rates than they can get through the local utility, ComEd. It was good to see so much of the electorate participate (of the 1,364,371 registered voters, 846,698 voted one way or the other on the referendum), and with a noticeable but not overwhelming majority (56%) choosing to allow the City to negotiate, hopefully this will lead those in charge to pursue the measure transparently.
Midwest Energy News has a great piece today discussing many of the details of aggregation. There are four main points for everyone to understand as we head into this:
Cost Savings
The major motivator for pursuing aggregation, and the primary reason most municipalities pursue it, is cost savings. Most people do not realize that over the past decade-plus, the electricity market was deregulated...meaning that the company that connects the wires to your home became separated from the company that generates the electricity tens to hundreds of miles away. This made it easy for large companies and institutions (like the City on behalf of the buildings it owns and operates) to select among many suppliers to find the right price. For small businesses and residents, ComEd would negotiate prices, with an emphasis on reliability of price and service. They negotiated several years out to make sure they could deliver a consistent price to customers rather than entering shorter-more volatile contracts. When the State of Illinois created the Illinois Power Agency, it created a state entity to handle this negotiation, and as ComEd contracts are winding down, it looks to lower prices. That will not happen until after May of next year, so in the meantime, cities have been able (under a separate law) to negotiate on behalf of its citizens if the citizens elect for them to do so. If the city planned (like Chicago) to set up a deal where a resident would have to choose NOT to participate (known as "opt-out"), then the election had to take place as a referendum. If the city planned to offer a program that residents could choose to enter at will (or "opt-in"), then that election could be city/town/village council vote. Chicago chose the former. With this power, the City can now try to find pricing for the citizens that is less than the previous long-term pricing from ComEd (that will drop in June 2013) and hopefully better than the new pricing available next summer.
One concern in this is that after May 2013, if the City deal does not represent the best price, consumers have a chance to opt out at that time, but it is not clear how they will know. Part of the selling point of aggregation is that by aggregating they get a better deal and the City can negotiate. That takes the concern out of some people's minds, and once they are in the City deal it may be no more a part of what they worry about than the utility bills currently are. It is great that people get reduced price, but once they get the reduced price for six months, the City will need to come up with a plan to help educate consumers in order to keep them from losing the down the road savings by staying in the City deal if it is not their best option.
Renewable Energy
One interesting ramification of decreasing the unit cost of electricity to consumers through aggregation is what happens to that savings. Does all of it get passed onto consumers? Is it used to change the quality of the commodity purchased? Does the aggregator take some of the savings as part of a fee for its service? These are all questions that remain to be answered by the City, and which will be interesting to see. Entities like the Environmental Law and Policy Center have pushed for support of aggregation on the grounds that the City can use the aggregation to improve the mix of supply sources, and provide more environmentally beneficial electricity. Reportedly, the City did include a request for pricing on the mix of energy in the Request for Qualifications it sent out prior to the referendum. (The RFQ will determine which suppliers will be allowed to bid on the actual supply contract when it becomes available.) This does not necessarily mean that the City will accept a certain mix, or even that the mix will include renewables. One concern is that if it does include renewables, that may take the form of renewable energy certificates in a short-term contract. Although this provides a level of pride to the consumer, it does not actually result in the development of new renewable energy, but rather, as one of the consultants to the City - Mark Pruitt - has said, "It pays for existing operators to pay to cut the grass." Hopefully, early next year, the Illinois state legislature figures out a way to reconcile the municipal aggregation law with the renewable portfolio standard to help these short-term purchase contracts lead to the installation of new, Illinois renewable energy.
Energy Efficiency
The municipal aggregation law requires a plan for energy efficiency, and the Sustainable Chicago 2015 plan accounts for that. One way the City may choose to help pursue efficiency is to take some of the savings and use it for projects throughout the city. The question that arises is how the City would manage that fund, and how transparent this process would be. The utilities in Chicago already have energy efficiency programs, so I would hope that the City - if it chooses to pursue this option - would use an energy efficiency fund to make it even easier for residents and small businesses to take advantage of utility programs and leverage more resources.
Fees
Lastly, it will be interesting to see how much of the savings gets "eaten away" by fees for the supplier, brokers, and the City. It will be incumbent upon watchdogs to make sure that as much of the savings gets passed on directly to consumers either in the way of money in their pocket or reductions in their energy bills.
As with anything in Chicago, Illinois, getting the local government involved in a part of our lives gives us pause. Residents and small businesses have choices, so on one level it helps that we can aggregate and have one less very confusing issue about which to worry. On another level, we need to make sure that every penny of the savings comes back to our communities in one way or another.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Request Monday (11.05.2012): Stormy weather...
"As we are digging out from the aftermath of Sandy, I hear many people talking about climate change as they talk about the storm. Storms like this have happened all the time, so why is climate change part of the conversation?"
Storms have happened throughout our history, and they will continue to happen as long as we live on this earth. The impact climate change has on storms deals with the one thing we know about climate change: overall temperature is rising. What does that have to do with storms? The same thing it has to do with storms is the same thing it has to do with droughts: warmer air holds more water and more energy. This has to do with a science called psychrometrics.
Psychrometrics is the study of the interrelation of temperature, moisture content, density, and energy content of air. Developed in the early part of last century, the interrelation of these parameters means much to those designing comfort systems for buildings and meteorologists predicting weather patterns. The chart that links all these characteristics of humid air is shown below:
The horizontal axis (along the bottom) is dry-bulb temperature, the temperature reported during the weather forecast. The vertical axis (along the right side of the chart) notes the amount of moisture contained in the air expressed as the weight of water relative to the weight of air. This is not something we are used to seeing, but the curved lines moving from low end to high end (left to right) that indicate relative humidity. We are familiar with the fact that areas like the desert southwest where we experience high temperature but low "relative humidity" and the northwest of the country where we have mid-range temperatures and high "relative humidity". The last two lines of interest are the highest curved line which notes the energy that is contained in the air and the slightly tilted vertical lines that represent the density of the air (air to the left is more dense than air to the right).
So what does this have to do with storms? Currently, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the average increase of temperature above the pre-warming level is a little over 1.1 F (about 0.62 C). If the average temperature increases by a degree (moving one line to the right), that means approximately a 1-3% increase in the energy content of the air and a decrease of 0.3% in the density of the air. Neither of these sound like much of an increase, but when you spread these over an 800 mile in circumference it adds energy to an already energetic storm, then for every loss of density of air you pick up more moisture. Picking up more energy and more moisture adds to the destructive nature of the storm. In the same sense, in drought areas, warmer air draws more moisture from the ground and deposits that moisture in other locations. Each of these severely changes the micro-climate of the region affected. The other impact climate change had on Sandy in particular was the change of the jet stream that changed the pressure around the northern end of the storm (pressure = energy). This change fueled what would have been a less damaging category 1 storm into a significantly more charged storm as it hit land (and therefore stopped being a hurricane).
As Mayor Andrew Cuomo stated, New York is now seeing a 100-year storm every other year. The cities in the areas hardest hit by these types of storms were not designed to handle this type of weather because they have never seen it before. The hallmark of our era of civilization will be how we both adapt to this changing climate and how we change our relationship with the environment to mitigate the increase in temperature.
-Mike from NYC-
Storms have happened throughout our history, and they will continue to happen as long as we live on this earth. The impact climate change has on storms deals with the one thing we know about climate change: overall temperature is rising. What does that have to do with storms? The same thing it has to do with storms is the same thing it has to do with droughts: warmer air holds more water and more energy. This has to do with a science called psychrometrics.
Psychrometrics is the study of the interrelation of temperature, moisture content, density, and energy content of air. Developed in the early part of last century, the interrelation of these parameters means much to those designing comfort systems for buildings and meteorologists predicting weather patterns. The chart that links all these characteristics of humid air is shown below:
The horizontal axis (along the bottom) is dry-bulb temperature, the temperature reported during the weather forecast. The vertical axis (along the right side of the chart) notes the amount of moisture contained in the air expressed as the weight of water relative to the weight of air. This is not something we are used to seeing, but the curved lines moving from low end to high end (left to right) that indicate relative humidity. We are familiar with the fact that areas like the desert southwest where we experience high temperature but low "relative humidity" and the northwest of the country where we have mid-range temperatures and high "relative humidity". The last two lines of interest are the highest curved line which notes the energy that is contained in the air and the slightly tilted vertical lines that represent the density of the air (air to the left is more dense than air to the right).
So what does this have to do with storms? Currently, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the average increase of temperature above the pre-warming level is a little over 1.1 F (about 0.62 C). If the average temperature increases by a degree (moving one line to the right), that means approximately a 1-3% increase in the energy content of the air and a decrease of 0.3% in the density of the air. Neither of these sound like much of an increase, but when you spread these over an 800 mile in circumference it adds energy to an already energetic storm, then for every loss of density of air you pick up more moisture. Picking up more energy and more moisture adds to the destructive nature of the storm. In the same sense, in drought areas, warmer air draws more moisture from the ground and deposits that moisture in other locations. Each of these severely changes the micro-climate of the region affected. The other impact climate change had on Sandy in particular was the change of the jet stream that changed the pressure around the northern end of the storm (pressure = energy). This change fueled what would have been a less damaging category 1 storm into a significantly more charged storm as it hit land (and therefore stopped being a hurricane).
As Mayor Andrew Cuomo stated, New York is now seeing a 100-year storm every other year. The cities in the areas hardest hit by these types of storms were not designed to handle this type of weather because they have never seen it before. The hallmark of our era of civilization will be how we both adapt to this changing climate and how we change our relationship with the environment to mitigate the increase in temperature.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Friday Five: November 2, 2012
It is not rocket science: higher ocean levels = larger storm surges, warmer oceans = more energy in storms, warmer air = more moisture (and energy) in the air, warmer arctic = changes in jet stream...climate change increases storm strength and changes the patterns of where they occur.
Hurricanes and climate change
"Hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones have always bedeviled coasts, but global warming may be making matters worse. Sea level is rising and will continue to rise as oceans warm and glaciers melt. Rising sea level means higher storm surges, even from relatively minor storms, which increases coastal flooding and subsequent storm damage along coasts. In addition, the associated heavy rains can extend hundreds of miles inland, further increasing the risk of flooding."
But it's not like anyone ever predicted that...
For Years, Warnings That It Could Happen Here
"For nearly a decade, scientists have told city and state officials that New York faces certain peril: rising sea levels, more frequent flooding and extreme weather patterns. The alarm bells grew louder after Tropical Storm Irene last year, when the city shut down its subway system and water rushed into the Rockaways and Lower Manhattan."
Ok, well not anyone else...wait, what? In 2006 who said what might happen by 2050?
NASA Looks at Sea Level Rise, Hurricane Risks to New York City
"Adding as little as 1.5 feet of sea level rise by the 2050s to the surge for a category 3 hurricane on a worst-case track would cause extensive flooding in many parts of the city. Areas potentially under water include the Rockaways, Coney Island, much of southern Brooklyn and Queens, portions of Long Island City, Astoria, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, Queens, lower Manhattan, and eastern Staten Island from Great Kills Harbor north to the Verrazano Bridge. "
As I have pointed out in the past, the cost of climate change is the most significant fiscal issue we leave to future generations. At least we know someone will have enough resources to help pay for the nearly $60 billion in damage this particular climate-change-fueled storm left in its wake.
Top Oil Giants Exxon And Shell Earn $54 Billion So Far In 2012, After Taking $800 Million In Annual Tax Breaks
"These two companies, along with the rest of the Big Five, continue to receive century-old annual tax breaks. At the same time, Exxon and Shell funnel a portion of their dollars toward lobbying against environment and public health protections, while also funding climate denier candidates. This summer, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said that he recognized carbon pollution causes warming, but minimized the full impact saying “those consequences are manageable.” Meanwhile, extreme weather damages in the U.S. alone have potentially cost up to $144 billion since 2011."
I'll have more hopeful stories next week, but for some solace, at least one of the most life-degrading technologies concocted by man is running into economic trouble.
Big Coal in big trouble as coal production costs rise
"It has gotten the point where, in some areas, profit margins have flipped: coal is now selling for less than it costs to produce. In other areas, that flip appears to be perilously close. Never mind EPA or natural gas or Obama or anything else: If it isn’t profitable to mine coal, it won’t be mined, not for long."
In a week of tragedy, with too many dead, and way too many displaced from their homes, it may seem hollow to say it, but after watching the relief telethon tonight, and seeing the American Red Cross website (www.redcross.org) jammed, and the text system (Text REDCROSS to 90999) jammed, and the phone system (1-800-HELP-NOW) jammed, and Twitter abuzz with #SandyHelp...it made me proud to be American, and definitely reminded me that no matter what, we all deserve a...
Happy Friday!
Hurricanes and climate change
"Hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones have always bedeviled coasts, but global warming may be making matters worse. Sea level is rising and will continue to rise as oceans warm and glaciers melt. Rising sea level means higher storm surges, even from relatively minor storms, which increases coastal flooding and subsequent storm damage along coasts. In addition, the associated heavy rains can extend hundreds of miles inland, further increasing the risk of flooding."
But it's not like anyone ever predicted that...
For Years, Warnings That It Could Happen Here
"For nearly a decade, scientists have told city and state officials that New York faces certain peril: rising sea levels, more frequent flooding and extreme weather patterns. The alarm bells grew louder after Tropical Storm Irene last year, when the city shut down its subway system and water rushed into the Rockaways and Lower Manhattan."
Ok, well not anyone else...wait, what? In 2006 who said what might happen by 2050?
NASA Looks at Sea Level Rise, Hurricane Risks to New York City
"Adding as little as 1.5 feet of sea level rise by the 2050s to the surge for a category 3 hurricane on a worst-case track would cause extensive flooding in many parts of the city. Areas potentially under water include the Rockaways, Coney Island, much of southern Brooklyn and Queens, portions of Long Island City, Astoria, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, Queens, lower Manhattan, and eastern Staten Island from Great Kills Harbor north to the Verrazano Bridge. "
As I have pointed out in the past, the cost of climate change is the most significant fiscal issue we leave to future generations. At least we know someone will have enough resources to help pay for the nearly $60 billion in damage this particular climate-change-fueled storm left in its wake.
Top Oil Giants Exxon And Shell Earn $54 Billion So Far In 2012, After Taking $800 Million In Annual Tax Breaks
"These two companies, along with the rest of the Big Five, continue to receive century-old annual tax breaks. At the same time, Exxon and Shell funnel a portion of their dollars toward lobbying against environment and public health protections, while also funding climate denier candidates. This summer, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said that he recognized carbon pollution causes warming, but minimized the full impact saying “those consequences are manageable.” Meanwhile, extreme weather damages in the U.S. alone have potentially cost up to $144 billion since 2011."
I'll have more hopeful stories next week, but for some solace, at least one of the most life-degrading technologies concocted by man is running into economic trouble.
Big Coal in big trouble as coal production costs rise
"It has gotten the point where, in some areas, profit margins have flipped: coal is now selling for less than it costs to produce. In other areas, that flip appears to be perilously close. Never mind EPA or natural gas or Obama or anything else: If it isn’t profitable to mine coal, it won’t be mined, not for long."
In a week of tragedy, with too many dead, and way too many displaced from their homes, it may seem hollow to say it, but after watching the relief telethon tonight, and seeing the American Red Cross website (www.redcross.org) jammed, and the text system (Text REDCROSS to 90999) jammed, and the phone system (1-800-HELP-NOW) jammed, and Twitter abuzz with #SandyHelp...it made me proud to be American, and definitely reminded me that no matter what, we all deserve a...
Happy Friday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)