The top local issue centered around the final closing of two coal-fired power plants in Chicago that found it economically unviable to comply with twenty-year-old environmental regulation to protect the air quality of our city. This underscores a year in which we saw two sides of coal...the increasing realization that coal is an unviable solution to energy supply because of the cost of its acquisition and processing taking into account only a fraction of the environmental cost, contrasted with the expansion of coal burning worldwide with support from world financial mechanisms that supposedly understand the devastating economic and environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
As Crawford and Fisk retire, negawatt plants power up and pay off for Illinoisans
"Energy efficiency-powered “negawatt” plants are cropping up all over the state. Perhaps you haven’t noticed them at all. They’re invisible. They don’t belch out any pollution. They quietly reduce your electric bills. They put people to work all over the state and they do it all with very little recognition. Let’s take a brief tour – no hard hat or asthma inhaler required. "
Hopefully we will remember the year 2012 as the year we understood that infrastructure decisions last for a generation, and if we hope to solve our current problems, we must immediately avoid making choices that favor industries and infrastructure that causes the environmental and economic problems we continue to face.
Brigadier General on Keystone XL pipeline:'All Americans should be outraged'
"'I want to stop paying big oil and I want to start seeing a green economy in this nation,' he told host Alicia Menendez. 'And big oil is pushing Keystone, and Keystone is essentially going to maintain the status quo for another 25 years. And during that time I can only imagine the impact it's going to have on our environment and, indeed, our national security.'
Gen. Anderson said that 'all Americans should be outraged about the potential implications for our national security' because the pipeline 'keeps us hopelessly addicted to oil.'"
This year also marks a long-needed change in the policy of vehicle efficiency. We have had the knowledge to make high efficiency automobiles and trucks for a generation, but have adopted technology too slowly. Within five years, we will see this goal - which seems so daunting right now - easily reached and surpassed as we once again push for innovation over complacency in our economy.
US finalizes big jump in auto fuel efficiency
"'These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,' President Barack Obama said in a statement.
The new fuel efficiency standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion in gasoline costs and reduce U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels over the period, according to the White House."
STUDY: More MPG = More Jobs
"The connection may not seem obvious but improving the miles per gallon of our cars spurs job creation. This is for two reasons: (1) improving automobile efficiency requires the addition of new technologies, which are designed and manufactured by adding workers in the auto industry and (2) money saved on gasoline by drivers will be spent on other goods and services, increasing jobs across the economy."
Beyond a doubt, 2012 will be remembered as the year of weather that signaled our changing climate. Droughts in the bread basket coupled with a crippling of our economic heart by a super-charged storm showed how fragile our existence can be, and the consequences we can expect if we fail to act swiftly.
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."
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."
Infographic On The Energy-Water Collision: How Hot, Dry Summers Impact Water and Power Generation
"As much as 41% of all water used in the United States goes to power plants to produce electricity, making them the single largest water consumer in the nation.
The relationship between water and power generation is complex. (A recent report featured on Climate Progress called “Burning Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity” takes an in depth look at water usage, particularity in the coal and nuclear sectors.) A whole host of issues can emerge related to the massive water consumption of the energy industry. Many of those issues become exacerbated in particularly hot and dry conditions, much like the ones we are experiencing this summer."
In two weeks, the Mississippi River could shut down
"The worst drought in half a century has brought water levels in the Mississippi close to historic lows and could shut down all shipping in a matter of weeks--unless Barack Obama takes extraordinary measures.
It's the second extreme event on the river in 18 months, after flooding in the spring of 2011 forced thousands to flee their homes.
Without rain, water levels on the Mississippi are projected to reach historic lows this month, the national weather service said in its latest four-week forecast."
As we see our food supply affected by the consequences of our energy actions, we are also opening our eyes to the inefficiency in that food supply. This will create great opportunity as prices rise, and should lead to a more resilient way of life.
Wasted: How America is losing up to 40% of its food supply from farm to fork to landfill
"Nutrition is also lost in the mix -- food saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Given all the resources demanded for food production, it is critical to make sure that the least amount possible is needlessly squandered on its journey to our plates."
BONUS: Most courageous and innovative solution of the year
Group buys Wyoming oil leases to stop drilling
"The deal would end PXP’s plan to drill 136 gas wells near the Hoback River headwaters inside Bridger-Teton National Forest, [near Jackson Hole and Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming]. Opponents said the project would pollute the air, harm wildlife and taint pristine streams in a rolling landscape of meadows and forest."
Happy New Year! See you in 2013!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Request Monday (12/24/2012): Santa Claus is coming to town...
"How does Santa get all the energy to travel around the world?"
I think you should watch the movie Elf. Buddy the Elf learns from his Papa Elf that Santa's sleigh is guided by the reindeer powered by Christmas magic. The reindeer need to eat, too, but that's about it.
Be good to your mom and dad tonight, and have a Merry Christmas!
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Mom and dad, are you still there?
I highly recommend you pick up The Autobiography of Santa Claus to learn about how St. Nicholas became and stays Santa Claus. It's important to know that Santa adapts as population grows and technologies change. We can gather that possibly thanks to Albert Einstein, Santa might have learned to use wormholes to help speed up his travel. This makes it more efficient for Santa, although tougher for NORAD to track him.
In any case, I cannot think of anything more valuable to improving the quality of human life than Santa. Almost eighteen hundred years and still going strong...finding more efficient ways to bring hope to hundreds of millions of people once a year.
Merry Christmas to you all!
-Maggie from Chicago-
I think you should watch the movie Elf. Buddy the Elf learns from his Papa Elf that Santa's sleigh is guided by the reindeer powered by Christmas magic. The reindeer need to eat, too, but that's about it.
Be good to your mom and dad tonight, and have a Merry Christmas!
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Mom and dad, are you still there?
I highly recommend you pick up The Autobiography of Santa Claus to learn about how St. Nicholas became and stays Santa Claus. It's important to know that Santa adapts as population grows and technologies change. We can gather that possibly thanks to Albert Einstein, Santa might have learned to use wormholes to help speed up his travel. This makes it more efficient for Santa, although tougher for NORAD to track him.
In any case, I cannot think of anything more valuable to improving the quality of human life than Santa. Almost eighteen hundred years and still going strong...finding more efficient ways to bring hope to hundreds of millions of people once a year.
Merry Christmas to you all!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday Five: December 21, 2012
As a nation, we need to reestablish our priorities, namely relative to valuing that without which we could not survive.
Left out: How much of the fresh produce that we grow never makes it off the farm?
"A closer look shows us that Americans are tossing 52% of the nation’s nutritious fruits and vegetables[i] – wasting produce, more than any other type of food product, including seafood, meat, grains and dairy, at nearly every level across the supply chain. Some of this massive produce loss is happening well before it reaches retailers, as perfectly edible produce is literally being left on the field or sent to the landfill. And many of these good fruits and vegetables are never even harvested."
If we can create a culture that values our natural resources, then we can feed more with less land and fewer non-natural resources, even with populations continuing to increase.
'Peak farmland' is here, crop area to diminish
"The report, supplied to Reuters by Ausubel, projected that almost 150 million hectares (370 million acres) could be restored to natural conditions such as forest by 2060. That is also equivalent to 1.5 times the area of Egypt or 10 times the size of Iowa. It said the global arable land and permanent crop areas rose from 1.37 billion hectares (3.38 billion acres) in 1961 to 1.53 billion (3.78 billion acres) in 2009. It projected a fall to 1.38 billion hectares (3.41 billion acres) in 2060."
This is made ever more important because the ways we currently seek to provide health protection to our populations are starting to grow into health issues for us as well.
New study finds link between chemical pollutants and food and environmental allergies
"The study reported that high levels of dichlorophenols, a chemical used in pesticides and to chlorinate water, when found in the human body, are associated with food allergies. 'Our research shows that high levels of dichlorophenol-containing pesticides can possibly weaken food tolerance in some people, causing food allergy,' said allergist Elina Jerschow, M.D., M.Sc., ACAAI fellow and lead study author. 'This chemical is commonly found in pesticides used by farmers and consumer insect and weed control products, as well as tap water.'"
We must begin, both individually, as a nation, and as a civilization, to find smarter ways of protecting our food, air, and water systems while delivering them to a growing world. To do this, we must have complete information on what we are doing, as well as the impacts and pitfalls.
The FDA is holding back data on farm antibiotics use — and plans to keep doing so
"Almost exactly a year ago, the FDA withdrew its decades-on-the-books attempt to exert regulatory control over agricultural antibiotic use, saying that it would instead pursue 'voluntary' approaches to getting agriculture to reduce its vast use of antibiotics. (An approach that the FDA’s own staff worried, in internal memos, might not work.) Since then, many people in consumer advocacy and public health have expressed skepticism that agriculture would respond to a voluntary approach. But it’s hard to see how agriculture can even attempt to respond if the FDA doesn’t ask."
Of at least equal importance, we must also value the hard work of those who struggle to keep us fed. This value must be reflected in a desire to make sure that everyone who toils to bring food to our tables has an equal chance at the same quality of life that we enjoy...with no caveats.
Will 2013 bring more rights to farmworkers?
"Farmworkers, exempt from some of the nation’s most basic labor laws, like minimum wage and overtime pay, work in one of the most hazardous occupations in the country. They face risks from strenuous physical labor, often for long hours in extremely hot climates; pesticide exposure; and their work often involves dangerous equipment, often without proper training or safety measures."
Happy Friday! And to those who celebrate...Merry Christmas!
Left out: How much of the fresh produce that we grow never makes it off the farm?
"A closer look shows us that Americans are tossing 52% of the nation’s nutritious fruits and vegetables[i] – wasting produce, more than any other type of food product, including seafood, meat, grains and dairy, at nearly every level across the supply chain. Some of this massive produce loss is happening well before it reaches retailers, as perfectly edible produce is literally being left on the field or sent to the landfill. And many of these good fruits and vegetables are never even harvested."
If we can create a culture that values our natural resources, then we can feed more with less land and fewer non-natural resources, even with populations continuing to increase.
'Peak farmland' is here, crop area to diminish
"The report, supplied to Reuters by Ausubel, projected that almost 150 million hectares (370 million acres) could be restored to natural conditions such as forest by 2060. That is also equivalent to 1.5 times the area of Egypt or 10 times the size of Iowa. It said the global arable land and permanent crop areas rose from 1.37 billion hectares (3.38 billion acres) in 1961 to 1.53 billion (3.78 billion acres) in 2009. It projected a fall to 1.38 billion hectares (3.41 billion acres) in 2060."
This is made ever more important because the ways we currently seek to provide health protection to our populations are starting to grow into health issues for us as well.
New study finds link between chemical pollutants and food and environmental allergies
"The study reported that high levels of dichlorophenols, a chemical used in pesticides and to chlorinate water, when found in the human body, are associated with food allergies. 'Our research shows that high levels of dichlorophenol-containing pesticides can possibly weaken food tolerance in some people, causing food allergy,' said allergist Elina Jerschow, M.D., M.Sc., ACAAI fellow and lead study author. 'This chemical is commonly found in pesticides used by farmers and consumer insect and weed control products, as well as tap water.'"
We must begin, both individually, as a nation, and as a civilization, to find smarter ways of protecting our food, air, and water systems while delivering them to a growing world. To do this, we must have complete information on what we are doing, as well as the impacts and pitfalls.
The FDA is holding back data on farm antibiotics use — and plans to keep doing so
"Almost exactly a year ago, the FDA withdrew its decades-on-the-books attempt to exert regulatory control over agricultural antibiotic use, saying that it would instead pursue 'voluntary' approaches to getting agriculture to reduce its vast use of antibiotics. (An approach that the FDA’s own staff worried, in internal memos, might not work.) Since then, many people in consumer advocacy and public health have expressed skepticism that agriculture would respond to a voluntary approach. But it’s hard to see how agriculture can even attempt to respond if the FDA doesn’t ask."
Of at least equal importance, we must also value the hard work of those who struggle to keep us fed. This value must be reflected in a desire to make sure that everyone who toils to bring food to our tables has an equal chance at the same quality of life that we enjoy...with no caveats.
Will 2013 bring more rights to farmworkers?
"Farmworkers, exempt from some of the nation’s most basic labor laws, like minimum wage and overtime pay, work in one of the most hazardous occupations in the country. They face risks from strenuous physical labor, often for long hours in extremely hot climates; pesticide exposure; and their work often involves dangerous equipment, often without proper training or safety measures."
Happy Friday! And to those who celebrate...Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 17, 2012
Request Monday (12/17/2012): 'Tis better to give....
"I recently had an argument with a colleague about organic food, and they said that by shopping for organic food, I was being an 'irrational consumer' and that if I wanted to give 'corporate charity', then that was fine, but that if organic items were truly the best they would also be the cheapest in the marketplace. They said this applies to all of the things we call green. Is that right?"
The simple answer to your question is, "Not quite", but first a couple of basic concepts:
1. Truly new products in a marketplace almost always cost more than existing products. Although you can get a DVD player for as little as $20 these days, Blu-Ray players are more expensive.
2. Established marketplaces favor incumbents. With consumer familiarity, established regulation, and entrenched financing (as well as legal and advertising infrastructure), existing technologies have considerable advantage.
3. The "rational consumer" attempts to get the most utility for their available resources, and does not stockpile or starve unless placed in dire circumstances.
The point your challenger does get right is that in the classic definition of utility, you are choosing to purchase a product at a price point that gives you less of what you "need" for the dollar spent. In that way, you are acting "irrationally". That said, people do this all the time. A person with a family of four needs only to purchase a car at $15,000, but they regularly purchase vehicles at twice to three times that amount based upon the perceived value they get from the purchase. Factors such as safety, comfort, or status have no economic value (unlike reliability and fuel economy which can be perceived as rational decisions), yet form the basis for paying more. The greatest utility for dining out comes from fast food (both non-healthy and healthy) yet people frequent restaurants of various prices all the time based upon food quality, ambiance, or fashion. Buying things that cost more, in and of itself, is not an irrational behavior in the real marketplace, but it helps to examine your motivations.
Quality
Many people choose green products because of the real and perceived quality. Home items that have no or fewer chemicals make some people more comfortable about using them. People purchase food products with no added chemicals or those that are prepared on site (such as baked goods) because they want items similar to those they might make from scratch. Some consumers place their money in banks that they know make a higher percentage of loans to local businesses because they want their money to circulate in their local community to keep property values high. None of these decisions will always result in the best economic choice, but will provide value to the consumer in the same way we discussed earlier.
Status
Some people have joined the "green movement" to be a part of something. For any number of personal motivations, they want to be a part of something so they buy the Prius, join a CSA, or put a "buy local" sticker in their window. Even though "fashion" has led to some poor decisions as a society, it can also feed into the good. In this case, people having a sense that although they do not totally get the issues, they see making green choices as the "hip" thing to do does not take away from the value of the decision, or even from the state of rationality of the consumer. Fad purchases have been a part of our economy for decades (if not centuries). If we eliminate them as irrational, we would have to change entire industries.
Externalities
Then, there are those consumers who make the "irrational" choice to include the price of externalities into their purchasing decisions. Externalities are costs associated with a product that do not get reflected in the price of the product. For example, the price of cigarettes did not used to include any cost of the impact of second-hand smoke on those who did not smoke. In theory, the person choosing to smoke would accept the cost of paying for medical care for themselves, but the cost of treating those who did not choose to smoke would be born by society or the people themselves. Many industries have these sorts of externalities: agribusiness has stream pollution and antibiotics, electricity has coal pollution and nuclear waste, and vehicles have road construction and smog. A consumer who chooses to pay the "full price" for a green product may do so because they know that it is better than the "full price" for the non-green alternative, even if the full economic benefit does not come to them directly (meaning they still might have to contribute to the funding of the externalities).
No matter what your reason for making your choices, choosing to buy the way you do helps to overcome the first two issues noted at the top of this post. Every new business needs people who are willing to pay a little more for the new or different technology. The iPhone significantly increased the price of a mobile phone, but the technophiles who wanted the latest technology bought in. By purchasing the product, you help to increase the marketplace, which will either move the incumbent players to change their approach, or will eventually make their products the higher priced. This happens as either we identify the externalities and build the cost in, or as investors see the value of the new idea and fund the increased scale. In any way, none of your decisions is really charity. You still expect quality, value and utility from your decision, you just have a more rational view on how your decisions affect others, and you have made the choice to accept the economic consequence.
Next time, ask your friend if he has ever seen a CAFO when he tells you about his inexpensive meat.
- Michael from Highland Park -
The simple answer to your question is, "Not quite", but first a couple of basic concepts:
1. Truly new products in a marketplace almost always cost more than existing products. Although you can get a DVD player for as little as $20 these days, Blu-Ray players are more expensive.
2. Established marketplaces favor incumbents. With consumer familiarity, established regulation, and entrenched financing (as well as legal and advertising infrastructure), existing technologies have considerable advantage.
3. The "rational consumer" attempts to get the most utility for their available resources, and does not stockpile or starve unless placed in dire circumstances.
The point your challenger does get right is that in the classic definition of utility, you are choosing to purchase a product at a price point that gives you less of what you "need" for the dollar spent. In that way, you are acting "irrationally". That said, people do this all the time. A person with a family of four needs only to purchase a car at $15,000, but they regularly purchase vehicles at twice to three times that amount based upon the perceived value they get from the purchase. Factors such as safety, comfort, or status have no economic value (unlike reliability and fuel economy which can be perceived as rational decisions), yet form the basis for paying more. The greatest utility for dining out comes from fast food (both non-healthy and healthy) yet people frequent restaurants of various prices all the time based upon food quality, ambiance, or fashion. Buying things that cost more, in and of itself, is not an irrational behavior in the real marketplace, but it helps to examine your motivations.
Quality
Many people choose green products because of the real and perceived quality. Home items that have no or fewer chemicals make some people more comfortable about using them. People purchase food products with no added chemicals or those that are prepared on site (such as baked goods) because they want items similar to those they might make from scratch. Some consumers place their money in banks that they know make a higher percentage of loans to local businesses because they want their money to circulate in their local community to keep property values high. None of these decisions will always result in the best economic choice, but will provide value to the consumer in the same way we discussed earlier.
Status
Some people have joined the "green movement" to be a part of something. For any number of personal motivations, they want to be a part of something so they buy the Prius, join a CSA, or put a "buy local" sticker in their window. Even though "fashion" has led to some poor decisions as a society, it can also feed into the good. In this case, people having a sense that although they do not totally get the issues, they see making green choices as the "hip" thing to do does not take away from the value of the decision, or even from the state of rationality of the consumer. Fad purchases have been a part of our economy for decades (if not centuries). If we eliminate them as irrational, we would have to change entire industries.
Externalities
Then, there are those consumers who make the "irrational" choice to include the price of externalities into their purchasing decisions. Externalities are costs associated with a product that do not get reflected in the price of the product. For example, the price of cigarettes did not used to include any cost of the impact of second-hand smoke on those who did not smoke. In theory, the person choosing to smoke would accept the cost of paying for medical care for themselves, but the cost of treating those who did not choose to smoke would be born by society or the people themselves. Many industries have these sorts of externalities: agribusiness has stream pollution and antibiotics, electricity has coal pollution and nuclear waste, and vehicles have road construction and smog. A consumer who chooses to pay the "full price" for a green product may do so because they know that it is better than the "full price" for the non-green alternative, even if the full economic benefit does not come to them directly (meaning they still might have to contribute to the funding of the externalities).
No matter what your reason for making your choices, choosing to buy the way you do helps to overcome the first two issues noted at the top of this post. Every new business needs people who are willing to pay a little more for the new or different technology. The iPhone significantly increased the price of a mobile phone, but the technophiles who wanted the latest technology bought in. By purchasing the product, you help to increase the marketplace, which will either move the incumbent players to change their approach, or will eventually make their products the higher priced. This happens as either we identify the externalities and build the cost in, or as investors see the value of the new idea and fund the increased scale. In any way, none of your decisions is really charity. You still expect quality, value and utility from your decision, you just have a more rational view on how your decisions affect others, and you have made the choice to accept the economic consequence.
Next time, ask your friend if he has ever seen a CAFO when he tells you about his inexpensive meat.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Friday Five: December 14, 2012
Carbon dioxide gets all the publicity, but many other environmental concerns should give us pause about increasing or maintaining our dependence on combustion as a source of energy transfer.
Seven states led by New York sue EPA over methane from oil and gas drilling
"Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, leading a coalition of seven states, today notified the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of his intent to sue the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act by failing to address methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry."
Sources to Seafood
"Sources to Seafood looks at the pathways and consequences of mercury pollution across marine systems by drawing on findings from the C-MERC papers, scientific literature and data from a range of marine systems and coastal basins."
EPA to tighten soot rules by 20%
"The Environmental Protection Agency tightened the nation’s soot standards by 20 percent Friday, a move that will force communities across the country to improve air quality by the end of the decade while making it harder for some industries to expand operations without strict pollution controls."
When a person who has been trained to protect this country understands the inherent dangers in increasing the infrastructure that enables our dependence on a dangerous practice, we should all be ready to act in opposition to that infrastructure.
Brigadier General on Keystone XL pipeline:'All Americans should be outraged'
"'I want to stop paying big oil and I want to start seeing a green economy in this nation,' he told host Alicia Menendez. 'And big oil is pushing Keystone, and Keystone is essentially going to maintain the status quo for another 25 years. And during that time I can only imagine the impact it's going to have on our environment and, indeed, our national security.'
Gen. Anderson said that 'all Americans should be outraged about the potential implications for our national security' because the pipeline 'keeps us hopelessly addicted to oil.'"
It is good to see that we are reaching a point in this country where people understand that we really cannot get something for nothing, and if the "economics" of an industry do not support running that industry in a way that protects life, then maybe we should not have that industry.
Tougher fracking regulations backed by 66% poll shows
"A Bloomberg National Poll found that 66 percent of Americans want more government oversight of the process, known as fracking, in which water, chemicals and sand are shot underground to free gas trapped in rock. That’s an increase from 56 percent in a September poll. The poll found 18 percent favored less regulation, down from 29 percent three months ago. 'More people are aware of fracking, and they are a little bit more opposed to it,' Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the University of Texas Energy Poll, said in an interview. The school’s polls also have asked questions on the topic, and 'it’s becoming more familiar,' she said."
Regulation alone will not be enough. In an era marked by tremendous improvements in communication and information availability, we must all demand to know the details of the impacts of our decisions, so that regulation can truly protect quality of life while allowing our economy to do its job.
Forty years after Clean Water Act, corn belt's rivers and streams are still murky
"The law succeeded in cutting pollution from cities and industries, but 80,000 miles of rivers and streams in the U.S. remain badly polluted by chemical fertilizers and manure. 'Iowa is a case study of the consequences of the most serious flaw in the Clean Water Act, that it does little or nothing to address farm pollution,' said Craig Cox, EWG’s senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources and co-author of the report. 'States across the nation are experiencing the same problems. The Clean Water Act has done a great job of cutting industrial pollution but farm pollution continues unabated.'"
If we are not smart about how we make our choices, we will end up with all sorts of unintended consequences that will hurt our economy, our ecology, and ourselves.
In two weeks, the Mississippi River could shut down
"The worst drought in half a century has brought water levels in the Mississippi close to historic lows and could shut down all shipping in a matter of weeks--unless Barack Obama takes extraordinary measures.
It's the second extreme event on the river in 18 months, after flooding in the spring of 2011 forced thousands to flee their homes.
Without rain, water levels on the Mississippi are projected to reach historic lows this month, the national weather service said in its latest four-week forecast."
Happy Friday!
Seven states led by New York sue EPA over methane from oil and gas drilling
"Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, leading a coalition of seven states, today notified the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of his intent to sue the Agency for violating the Clean Air Act by failing to address methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry."
Sources to Seafood
"Sources to Seafood looks at the pathways and consequences of mercury pollution across marine systems by drawing on findings from the C-MERC papers, scientific literature and data from a range of marine systems and coastal basins."
EPA to tighten soot rules by 20%
"The Environmental Protection Agency tightened the nation’s soot standards by 20 percent Friday, a move that will force communities across the country to improve air quality by the end of the decade while making it harder for some industries to expand operations without strict pollution controls."
When a person who has been trained to protect this country understands the inherent dangers in increasing the infrastructure that enables our dependence on a dangerous practice, we should all be ready to act in opposition to that infrastructure.
Brigadier General on Keystone XL pipeline:'All Americans should be outraged'
"'I want to stop paying big oil and I want to start seeing a green economy in this nation,' he told host Alicia Menendez. 'And big oil is pushing Keystone, and Keystone is essentially going to maintain the status quo for another 25 years. And during that time I can only imagine the impact it's going to have on our environment and, indeed, our national security.'
Gen. Anderson said that 'all Americans should be outraged about the potential implications for our national security' because the pipeline 'keeps us hopelessly addicted to oil.'"
It is good to see that we are reaching a point in this country where people understand that we really cannot get something for nothing, and if the "economics" of an industry do not support running that industry in a way that protects life, then maybe we should not have that industry.
Tougher fracking regulations backed by 66% poll shows
"A Bloomberg National Poll found that 66 percent of Americans want more government oversight of the process, known as fracking, in which water, chemicals and sand are shot underground to free gas trapped in rock. That’s an increase from 56 percent in a September poll. The poll found 18 percent favored less regulation, down from 29 percent three months ago. 'More people are aware of fracking, and they are a little bit more opposed to it,' Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the University of Texas Energy Poll, said in an interview. The school’s polls also have asked questions on the topic, and 'it’s becoming more familiar,' she said."
Regulation alone will not be enough. In an era marked by tremendous improvements in communication and information availability, we must all demand to know the details of the impacts of our decisions, so that regulation can truly protect quality of life while allowing our economy to do its job.
Forty years after Clean Water Act, corn belt's rivers and streams are still murky
"The law succeeded in cutting pollution from cities and industries, but 80,000 miles of rivers and streams in the U.S. remain badly polluted by chemical fertilizers and manure. 'Iowa is a case study of the consequences of the most serious flaw in the Clean Water Act, that it does little or nothing to address farm pollution,' said Craig Cox, EWG’s senior vice president of agriculture and natural resources and co-author of the report. 'States across the nation are experiencing the same problems. The Clean Water Act has done a great job of cutting industrial pollution but farm pollution continues unabated.'"
If we are not smart about how we make our choices, we will end up with all sorts of unintended consequences that will hurt our economy, our ecology, and ourselves.
In two weeks, the Mississippi River could shut down
"The worst drought in half a century has brought water levels in the Mississippi close to historic lows and could shut down all shipping in a matter of weeks--unless Barack Obama takes extraordinary measures.
It's the second extreme event on the river in 18 months, after flooding in the spring of 2011 forced thousands to flee their homes.
Without rain, water levels on the Mississippi are projected to reach historic lows this month, the national weather service said in its latest four-week forecast."
Happy Friday!
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Request Monday $2-short Edition (12/12/12): It's a gas, gas, gas...
"I saw that the City of Chicago chose a supplier for residential electricity, and that they eliminated coal from the electricity mix. They didn't mention anything about renewable energy, though, so is this definitely better?"
I should first be clear that eliminating coal from the electricity supply is essential, and unfortunately is a notable step. Much has been written about the ills caused by coal combustion and mining, and the EPA has fought for twenty years to enforce regulations that meant to significantly decrease pollution from coal power plants. Companies fought the implementation of those controls (meant to reduce nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulates that result from the burning of coal), and have recently begun to close down plants rather than invest in the equipment to meet these regulations that the EPA can finally fully enforce. In Chicago alone this year, we saw the closing of the Fisk and Crawford coal-fired generation plants located near the Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods. This great step for air quality in Chicago, matched with a commitment to using the buying power of the residents of Chicago to lessen the market for coal-generated electricity, could mark a turning point for the industry.
Even with that positive step forward, there is a danger with assuming that the environmental impact will be significantly better. The lack of a commitment to replace that coal power with wind, solar, hydro, or even biomass power, leaves the door open to completely shift out coal for more natural gas. Natural gas has the reputation for cleaner burning - earned because of the significant reduction in SOx and NOx compared with coal and oil - that some apply immediately to greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions depends heavily on with which generation plants the new supplier enters into contracts on behalf of the city residents. Looking at all the electricity generating plants in the State of Illinois (thanks to the eGrid website), we can compare the possible emissions profiles of electricity mixes that do and do not include coal. For the basis of comparison, we will base the mix on the most recent ComEd environmental disclosure statement (available through the Illinois Commerce Commission website). Using the percentages from that statement, and applying the average emissions per megawatt-hour (MWh, the fundamental unit of electricity energy for large-scale generation...one MWh is 1,000 kilowatt-hours, kWh, which is the unit most rate payers are used to seeing on their bill), we can determine a total emissions per MWh for each mix. The table below summarizes the results.
You will note that the current mix uses 43% coal power, which I assume the new mix would completely replace with natural gas, bringing that total to 60%. Since each generation mix results in some amount of NOx, SOx, CO2 and CH4 (methane) emissions, those form the basis of comparison. The inclusion of methane is important to the analysis because methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (as much as 25 times as potent). The combined impact of releasing CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere gets communicated through the value of CO2e, carbon dioxide equivalent, which allows for an easier comparison. (The value in the table comes from using the EPA's online calculator for CO2e knowing the mix of greenhouse gases emitted.) The analysis also includes an assumption about the methane (the primary component of natural gas) that leaks throughout the mining and transportation process. Although research continues, recent research suggests that natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing (otherwise known as fracking) can have increased losses of methane because of the processes used by drillers and the lack of capture equipment employed. Typically, natural gas mining and transportation will result in 2-4% losses from the deposit to the plant. Research has varied, but researchers (including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have seen as much as 9% total losses. I use 3% and 5% for natural gas obtained from traditional drilling methods and fracking extraction respectively. The representatives from Integrys noted that between 30 and 40 percent of the current natural gas supply comes from fracking, and they could not guarantee they could even account for where the gas supply comes from much less seek to eliminate it. I used 35% as an average to complete the analysis (and used the following conversion table combined with the eGrid data to determine how much gas would be needed to supply the heat energy required for electricity generation...if you are interested). With the increase in methane production during the burning of natural gas relative to coal, and the increased losses of natural gas through mining and transportation, the net reduction in CO2e as a measure of improved greenhouse gas emissions stands at about 4% for natural gas as opposed to coal. Although a decent step forward, at this juncture, we should not celebrate a 4% reduction, especially when that reduction may not improve over the two and a half years of the contract.
I will give you a couple of cautionary words of optimism. The analysis right now can only use the average of potential generators in the state because nothing is known about the actual plants from where the city will receive electricity. The city negotiators did include a requirement that the supplier provide specific documentation of each plant that will provide electricity to residents and small businesses, meaning that the selection process can produce better-than-average results.
Looking closer at the ComEd disclosure form, one will note that the current mix provides better-than-average results even including coal, so the supplier can do it. In fact, in order to make an improvement they must select significantly better-than-average generators in order to beat the current emissions level. In addition to this opportunity, the public can provide continued pressure to improve the mix further by pushing for more renewable energy, and especially for Illinois-based renewable energy.
As a last comment, although increased nuclear power would also significantly reduce CO2e emissions, there are still long-term and short-term issues with the generation of electricity through nuclear processes and the storage of waste products. Most of these plants are not located near Chicago, but transferring the risk from urban communities to rural communities located near the plants does not mean we have improved the environmental impact. When it comes down to it, the only two ways to make improvements in the quality of life of all Illinoisians, are to significantly reduce the total need for electricity in our lives, and for that which we cannot eliminate, use fully-renewable resources. Everything else will just provide a band-aid, but it will not solve the problem.
- Brooke from Rogers Park -The City Council of Chicago meets today to approve the supplier agreement and pave the way for residential and small business electricity supply for the entire city. After attending the Finance Committee meeting this past Monday where Aldermen reviewed the contract and asked questions of both the representatives of the city government who negotiated the contract and Integrys Energy Services, the recommended supplier. From the testimony and questions, it is clear that the contract will not include electricity generated by plants that burn coal, and it was equally unclear how the supplier planned to replace that electricity with another source. Neither the consultant representing the city nor the supplier could provide a specific answer, but through questioning, the answer seemed to come down to increased purchases from plants that burn natural gas. Although environmental groups lauded the elimination of coal, the city officials managing the contract will have much work to do to ensure that a new mix - if it indeed relies more heavily on natural gas - provides environmental benefit.
I should first be clear that eliminating coal from the electricity supply is essential, and unfortunately is a notable step. Much has been written about the ills caused by coal combustion and mining, and the EPA has fought for twenty years to enforce regulations that meant to significantly decrease pollution from coal power plants. Companies fought the implementation of those controls (meant to reduce nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulates that result from the burning of coal), and have recently begun to close down plants rather than invest in the equipment to meet these regulations that the EPA can finally fully enforce. In Chicago alone this year, we saw the closing of the Fisk and Crawford coal-fired generation plants located near the Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods. This great step for air quality in Chicago, matched with a commitment to using the buying power of the residents of Chicago to lessen the market for coal-generated electricity, could mark a turning point for the industry.
Even with that positive step forward, there is a danger with assuming that the environmental impact will be significantly better. The lack of a commitment to replace that coal power with wind, solar, hydro, or even biomass power, leaves the door open to completely shift out coal for more natural gas. Natural gas has the reputation for cleaner burning - earned because of the significant reduction in SOx and NOx compared with coal and oil - that some apply immediately to greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions depends heavily on with which generation plants the new supplier enters into contracts on behalf of the city residents. Looking at all the electricity generating plants in the State of Illinois (thanks to the eGrid website), we can compare the possible emissions profiles of electricity mixes that do and do not include coal. For the basis of comparison, we will base the mix on the most recent ComEd environmental disclosure statement (available through the Illinois Commerce Commission website). Using the percentages from that statement, and applying the average emissions per megawatt-hour (MWh, the fundamental unit of electricity energy for large-scale generation...one MWh is 1,000 kilowatt-hours, kWh, which is the unit most rate payers are used to seeing on their bill), we can determine a total emissions per MWh for each mix. The table below summarizes the results.
I will give you a couple of cautionary words of optimism. The analysis right now can only use the average of potential generators in the state because nothing is known about the actual plants from where the city will receive electricity. The city negotiators did include a requirement that the supplier provide specific documentation of each plant that will provide electricity to residents and small businesses, meaning that the selection process can produce better-than-average results.
As a last comment, although increased nuclear power would also significantly reduce CO2e emissions, there are still long-term and short-term issues with the generation of electricity through nuclear processes and the storage of waste products. Most of these plants are not located near Chicago, but transferring the risk from urban communities to rural communities located near the plants does not mean we have improved the environmental impact. When it comes down to it, the only two ways to make improvements in the quality of life of all Illinoisians, are to significantly reduce the total need for electricity in our lives, and for that which we cannot eliminate, use fully-renewable resources. Everything else will just provide a band-aid, but it will not solve the problem.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Friday Five: December 7, 2012
We need consistent, clear reminders that our actions have consequences, and ones that can cause us more harm than the benefit we get from those original actions.
NOAA: Contiguous U.S. warmer and drier than average for November, autumn
"The January-November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States, and for the entire year, 2012 will most likely surpass the current record (1998, 54.3°F) as the warmest year for the nation."
Although those consequences will largely occur outside the man-made system of finance, our economy will also suffer as regional climates change drastically.
Report shows warming weather may cost winter tourism $2 billion a year
"The report by Protect Our Winters and the Natural Resources Defense Council — dubbed 'Winter Tourism in Peril' and released Thursday as Colorado endures a dry start to the ski season — says the country's $12.2 billion ski-and-snowmobile industry is waning as warmer temperatures melt snow and revenues."
At the very least, we need to divest ourselves of cooperative support for those industries that cause and exacerbate the problems.
Worse than Solyndra
"Since the 1980s, oil shale has been showered with billions in tax credits, price guarantees, and loan guarantees. In addition, public lands have been given to private companies for oil shale research and development without requiring the payment of rents, bonuses, or royalties for facilities producing at less than commercial scale. After decades of federal support, oil shale has yet to be commercially produced. And simply making more federal lands available or limiting regulations on resource extraction is not a solution to our nation’s debt crisis. It could even lead to greater taxpayer liabilities down the road."
To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios
In recent weeks, college students on dozens of campuses have demanded that university endowment funds rid themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks. The students see it as a tactic that could force climate change, barely discussed in the presidential campaign, back onto the national political agenda.
When we do so, we will find that our choice to rely more on people than energy will create benefits far beyond an improved quality of life.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says more people in U.S. work in green energy than in petroleum industry
"In a summary of the report, Brookings said, 'the clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry …' Brookings pegged the number of fossil fuel jobs at 2.4 million."
It may also put a couple of extra dollars in each of our pockets....dollars we can use to support a local business and increase the strength of our communities.
Cyclists and pedestrians can end up spending more each month than drivers
"But for all of the other business types examined, bikers actually out-consumed drivers over the course of a month. True, they often spent less per visit. But cyclists and pedestrians in particular made more frequent trips (by their own estimation) to these restaurants, bars and convenience stores, and those receipts added up. This finding is logical: It’s a lot easier to make an impulse pizza stop if you’re passing by an aromatic restaurant on foot or bike instead of in a passing car at 35 miles an hour. Such frequent visits are part of the walkable culture. Compare European communities – where it's common to hit the bakery, butcher and fish market on the way home from work – to U.S. communities where the weekly drive to Walmart’s supermarket requires an hour of dedicated planning."
Happy Friday!
NOAA: Contiguous U.S. warmer and drier than average for November, autumn
"The January-November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States, and for the entire year, 2012 will most likely surpass the current record (1998, 54.3°F) as the warmest year for the nation."
Although those consequences will largely occur outside the man-made system of finance, our economy will also suffer as regional climates change drastically.
Report shows warming weather may cost winter tourism $2 billion a year
"The report by Protect Our Winters and the Natural Resources Defense Council — dubbed 'Winter Tourism in Peril' and released Thursday as Colorado endures a dry start to the ski season — says the country's $12.2 billion ski-and-snowmobile industry is waning as warmer temperatures melt snow and revenues."
At the very least, we need to divest ourselves of cooperative support for those industries that cause and exacerbate the problems.
Worse than Solyndra
"Since the 1980s, oil shale has been showered with billions in tax credits, price guarantees, and loan guarantees. In addition, public lands have been given to private companies for oil shale research and development without requiring the payment of rents, bonuses, or royalties for facilities producing at less than commercial scale. After decades of federal support, oil shale has yet to be commercially produced. And simply making more federal lands available or limiting regulations on resource extraction is not a solution to our nation’s debt crisis. It could even lead to greater taxpayer liabilities down the road."
To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios
In recent weeks, college students on dozens of campuses have demanded that university endowment funds rid themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks. The students see it as a tactic that could force climate change, barely discussed in the presidential campaign, back onto the national political agenda.
When we do so, we will find that our choice to rely more on people than energy will create benefits far beyond an improved quality of life.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says more people in U.S. work in green energy than in petroleum industry
"In a summary of the report, Brookings said, 'the clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry …' Brookings pegged the number of fossil fuel jobs at 2.4 million."
It may also put a couple of extra dollars in each of our pockets....dollars we can use to support a local business and increase the strength of our communities.
Cyclists and pedestrians can end up spending more each month than drivers
"But for all of the other business types examined, bikers actually out-consumed drivers over the course of a month. True, they often spent less per visit. But cyclists and pedestrians in particular made more frequent trips (by their own estimation) to these restaurants, bars and convenience stores, and those receipts added up. This finding is logical: It’s a lot easier to make an impulse pizza stop if you’re passing by an aromatic restaurant on foot or bike instead of in a passing car at 35 miles an hour. Such frequent visits are part of the walkable culture. Compare European communities – where it's common to hit the bakery, butcher and fish market on the way home from work – to U.S. communities where the weekly drive to Walmart’s supermarket requires an hour of dedicated planning."
Happy Friday!
Monday, December 3, 2012
Request Monday (12/03/2012): 'Tis the season...
"With the holidays upon us, I am torn between the spirit of giving for the season and the rampant commercialism and materialism that seem to have overtaken these end of year holidays. What can I do to be environmentally smart yet still participate in the season?"
There are so many people who go through this each year, and there are some great ways to meet your goal. Each of them looks to find ways to highlight the "exchange of gifts" over the "use of resources" to reflect the generosity of the season.
1. Donations in name of...
One of the best ways to double your gift is to give to a charitable organization in the name of someone on your gift list. The best way to do this is to pick a charity that meets their personality or passion rather than your own. As an example, in our family grab bag, I had a cousin who is a huge cat lover, and though I am not a pet owner myself, we donated to PAWS on her behalf. You will want to do a bit of research to make sure the organization you choose has a low level of overhead so that as much of your donation as possible goes to the organization.
2. Self-giving
One of the most personal ways to give a gift to someone is to give them the gift of you...or more specifically, your time. If you have a friend or family member who is a new parent, give them the gift of free babysitting (perhaps paired with a dinner out...see below). You can give your spouse a "massage certificate" from you...payable on demand. Again, it personalizes the gift so that you can tailor it to what you know they need.
3. Shop-local gift cards
Depending on where they live, some locations have "shop local" gift cards that the consumer can use at businesses in a local area. Cities like Charlottesville, VA and counties like Dane County, WI have programs where people can buy gift cards accepted at local businesses. Even more personal, if there is a local business or service that you know the recipient likes (like a local restaurant), you can buy them a gift certificate directly to that business.
4. Memberships
Most cities have museums to which individuals or families can belong as members for which they get benefits of access to special events, reduced (or free) admission. In the Chicago area, the Museum of Science and Industry, Art Institute, Field Museum, etc. all have programs for family membership which gives your recipient a year's worth of enjoyment.
5. Activity over items
Even if you don't think your giftee will want something in the list above, you can consider giving them something to do rather than something to have. A dinner and a movie gift to new parents as opposed to a DVD player, a year's worth of lawn mowing service instead of a lawn mower to your son and daughter-in-law. These provide a benefit to the recipient but also stimulate the economy with lower resource use.
6. Reused and reconditioned
Especially if you have a movie or book lover, gifts of used books (especially hard to find books) or movies can be both cost effective and enjoyable. Paired with another item on the list, they make a great gift and "wrapping paper" for a gift card or savings bond. Which leads me to....
7. Savings
As a last resort, consider savings programs like bonds as a way to provide a gift to someone, especially kids, who might benefit from the savings. Paired with a gift card or a used book, it provides a "level of gift" you might want to give without trying to match that value with a "thing".
The great thing about this season is the spirit of giving and bringing people together. Enjoy the holidays with all the parties (hopefully with largely organic, non-GMO goodies), outings, and adventures that bring people together. If you make conscious choices, you can still give generously without damaging the environment.
- Katie from Chicago -
There are so many people who go through this each year, and there are some great ways to meet your goal. Each of them looks to find ways to highlight the "exchange of gifts" over the "use of resources" to reflect the generosity of the season.
1. Donations in name of...
One of the best ways to double your gift is to give to a charitable organization in the name of someone on your gift list. The best way to do this is to pick a charity that meets their personality or passion rather than your own. As an example, in our family grab bag, I had a cousin who is a huge cat lover, and though I am not a pet owner myself, we donated to PAWS on her behalf. You will want to do a bit of research to make sure the organization you choose has a low level of overhead so that as much of your donation as possible goes to the organization.
2. Self-giving
One of the most personal ways to give a gift to someone is to give them the gift of you...or more specifically, your time. If you have a friend or family member who is a new parent, give them the gift of free babysitting (perhaps paired with a dinner out...see below). You can give your spouse a "massage certificate" from you...payable on demand. Again, it personalizes the gift so that you can tailor it to what you know they need.
3. Shop-local gift cards
Depending on where they live, some locations have "shop local" gift cards that the consumer can use at businesses in a local area. Cities like Charlottesville, VA and counties like Dane County, WI have programs where people can buy gift cards accepted at local businesses. Even more personal, if there is a local business or service that you know the recipient likes (like a local restaurant), you can buy them a gift certificate directly to that business.
4. Memberships
Most cities have museums to which individuals or families can belong as members for which they get benefits of access to special events, reduced (or free) admission. In the Chicago area, the Museum of Science and Industry, Art Institute, Field Museum, etc. all have programs for family membership which gives your recipient a year's worth of enjoyment.
5. Activity over items
Even if you don't think your giftee will want something in the list above, you can consider giving them something to do rather than something to have. A dinner and a movie gift to new parents as opposed to a DVD player, a year's worth of lawn mowing service instead of a lawn mower to your son and daughter-in-law. These provide a benefit to the recipient but also stimulate the economy with lower resource use.
6. Reused and reconditioned
Especially if you have a movie or book lover, gifts of used books (especially hard to find books) or movies can be both cost effective and enjoyable. Paired with another item on the list, they make a great gift and "wrapping paper" for a gift card or savings bond. Which leads me to....
7. Savings
As a last resort, consider savings programs like bonds as a way to provide a gift to someone, especially kids, who might benefit from the savings. Paired with a gift card or a used book, it provides a "level of gift" you might want to give without trying to match that value with a "thing".
The great thing about this season is the spirit of giving and bringing people together. Enjoy the holidays with all the parties (hopefully with largely organic, non-GMO goodies), outings, and adventures that bring people together. If you make conscious choices, you can still give generously without damaging the environment.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Friday Five: November 30, 2012
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!
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!
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!
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Adding Light Spotlight: Biomimicry/Great Lakes Bioneers Chicago
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.
Can you imagine a strand of cable that can hold as much as a steel cable but at less than 1/5th the weight? How about a solar panel that bypasses energy development and converts energy directly to matter? Or a structural surface that is self-cleaning? Each of these technologies already exists, and has for millions to billions of years. Nature has evolved and adapted to produce spider silk, photosynthesis, and leaf structures that have survived precisely because of their efficiency and efficacy. Debates about human evolution do not center around one of the key principles, that those traits most effective for survival win out. As we look toward solutions for some of our human-made issues and ways to improve our quality of life, we need look no further than the examples laid before us by nature. This act of using nature as a guide to solving problems is biomimicry.
Although many examples of biomimicry precede the 20th century (famously Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks), the last one hundred years have seen the expansion of the idea and the formal codification of the science of biomimicry. The Wright Brothers analyzed bird movements (much like Leonardo) to produce their first flying machine, but Otto Schmitt, a scientist and inventor who founded modern biomedical science is credited with coining the term biomimetics which found its way into the world lexicon in the 1970s. The seminal moment for biomimcry as a popular movement came in 1997 with the publishing of Janine Benyus's book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. That book inspired the founding of the Biomimicry Institute and since that time the institute and others have sought to identify natural solutions to technological problems. For example, when trying to find the most aerodynamic shape for vehicles, we have for over a century looked to theoretical science to predict performance; biomimicry has looked to animals that most efficiently move through fluid to copy their shape.
At the same time, Kenny Ausubel and Nina Simons wanted to inspire innovators to look for more natural ways to feed, heal, and support life, and through their company Seeds of Change, started the first Bioneers conferences in the early 1990s. These conferences centered around regional issues, and sought to identify natural solutions to these problems. Great Lakes Bioneers Chicago (at the UIC Student Center East this weekend November 2-4) looks to bring together people from all walks of life to create an atmosphere where ideas can "cross-pollinate" and form the foundation for life-supporting solutions that allow us to improve our quality of life without degrading life for another or in another way. If you get the chance to go to the event this weekend, or even just follow the event through the website and get connected to some of the innovative Chicago thinkers who are following this life-affirming way of thinking, you will never look at life the same way again.
Can you imagine a strand of cable that can hold as much as a steel cable but at less than 1/5th the weight? How about a solar panel that bypasses energy development and converts energy directly to matter? Or a structural surface that is self-cleaning? Each of these technologies already exists, and has for millions to billions of years. Nature has evolved and adapted to produce spider silk, photosynthesis, and leaf structures that have survived precisely because of their efficiency and efficacy. Debates about human evolution do not center around one of the key principles, that those traits most effective for survival win out. As we look toward solutions for some of our human-made issues and ways to improve our quality of life, we need look no further than the examples laid before us by nature. This act of using nature as a guide to solving problems is biomimicry.
Although many examples of biomimicry precede the 20th century (famously Leonardo Da Vinci's notebooks), the last one hundred years have seen the expansion of the idea and the formal codification of the science of biomimicry. The Wright Brothers analyzed bird movements (much like Leonardo) to produce their first flying machine, but Otto Schmitt, a scientist and inventor who founded modern biomedical science is credited with coining the term biomimetics which found its way into the world lexicon in the 1970s. The seminal moment for biomimcry as a popular movement came in 1997 with the publishing of Janine Benyus's book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. That book inspired the founding of the Biomimicry Institute and since that time the institute and others have sought to identify natural solutions to technological problems. For example, when trying to find the most aerodynamic shape for vehicles, we have for over a century looked to theoretical science to predict performance; biomimicry has looked to animals that most efficiently move through fluid to copy their shape.
At the same time, Kenny Ausubel and Nina Simons wanted to inspire innovators to look for more natural ways to feed, heal, and support life, and through their company Seeds of Change, started the first Bioneers conferences in the early 1990s. These conferences centered around regional issues, and sought to identify natural solutions to these problems. Great Lakes Bioneers Chicago (at the UIC Student Center East this weekend November 2-4) looks to bring together people from all walks of life to create an atmosphere where ideas can "cross-pollinate" and form the foundation for life-supporting solutions that allow us to improve our quality of life without degrading life for another or in another way. If you get the chance to go to the event this weekend, or even just follow the event through the website and get connected to some of the innovative Chicago thinkers who are following this life-affirming way of thinking, you will never look at life the same way again.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Request Monday (10/29/2012): Trick or treat?
"Is there anything to be done about celebrating Halloween in a more green way?"
Short answer: no. Halloween has become an example of two of the worst of our unsustainable processes: the once-through, linear process (by which raw materials become costumes and decorations) and the mad dash for consumption of the unhealthy (in this case, tons of candy). Not nearly enough parents are willing to risk the social stigma to their kids that comes with giving up on trick-or-treating or dressing up, leaving little hope for avoiding the holiday madness without the danger of years of therapy for your child. That said, there are some ways in which we can take some of the edge off Halloween and restore a bit of sanity to the day.
1. Ditch the "fake-abs" Batman from [Insert name here] and get creative
Halloween is one of the holidays where young adults actually get it right better than the younger versions of themselves. Although some still shop for the "his and hers cave people" costumes, most would rather find clever ways to take existing household clothing and items, mix with some colored duct tape, and voila!....you are George and Mary from It's a Wonderful Life in the "Buffalo Gals" scene, or the president's secret service. Most pre-made costumes are made out of plastic (which comes from petroleum), require a significant amount of energy to make, ship, and dispose of, generally are not recyclable, and do not get used more than once. Using what "we have around the house already" makes better use of resources and avoids the end of holiday disposal. As a compromise, put some effort into making a costume from fabric or more benign materials. Also, make it of enough quality that it can be passed around the family for a couple of years. My wife is making a Boo from Monsters, Inc. costume that should find its way on many 2-year olds for Halloweens to come.
2. Forgo long journeys around the neighborhood looking to see who can fill a Hefty bag with treats
Another great tradition of the twenty-something set is the Halloween party, pub crawl, etc. whereby everyone assembles at one place for food, fun, and a lot of guessing what's under the costume. Although I would recommend a more tame version of this for your 5-year-old, getting together at one house, with a mix of homemade and whole foods can still be about "having a treat" without resorting to amassing piles of processed food in individual plastic wrappers. By all means, do a walk around to the neighbors and the friends of the family, and get out into the neighborhood to socialize, but make the food focus one where you can control both the quantity and quality.
3. Speaking of quality, avoid the unnecessary
I have to admit, that given the time of day when trick-or-treating happens (right after work) and my general disdain for handing out processed food (along with my refusal to be the "apple guy"), we generally avoid the issue altogether and do not hand out candy. If you cannot give it up, and I know many people who love seeing wave upon wave of kids at their door, make some smart selections:
* avoid foods with any ingredients that are not "kitchen foods"
* avoid candy with GMO ingredients
* do not be afraid to offer natural, pre-packaged "fruit snacks" or coinage
* do some research into the working conditions of the people harvesting the food
4. Donate your excess
Kids are not dumb, and if you scrape off half of their booty, they will notice. Include them in the process of separating out unsafe and really unhealthy foods, and encourage them to put together a "give away" pile. Then take that pile to a shelter to share with kids who did not get the same opportunity they did. It will reduce the waste, the number of post-Halloween days your kids have a sugar high, and the stress of the day. Any opportunity to turn what otherwise would be selfish consumerism into a way to bring light to another should be pursued.
There are many who will read this and think of me as just another anti-capitalism, anti-holiday, fun-sucker...which couldn't be further from the truth. I do think that we have taken the easy way out over the years and have allowed the holiday to be "mass-produced" for us without regard for the use of resources and affect on our quality of life. By dialing back on some of the more damaging activities, and enhancing the social and creative aspects, we will get to a more enjoyable holiday.
I hope you all have a safe and happy Halloween!
-Dan from L.A-
Short answer: no. Halloween has become an example of two of the worst of our unsustainable processes: the once-through, linear process (by which raw materials become costumes and decorations) and the mad dash for consumption of the unhealthy (in this case, tons of candy). Not nearly enough parents are willing to risk the social stigma to their kids that comes with giving up on trick-or-treating or dressing up, leaving little hope for avoiding the holiday madness without the danger of years of therapy for your child. That said, there are some ways in which we can take some of the edge off Halloween and restore a bit of sanity to the day.
1. Ditch the "fake-abs" Batman from [Insert name here] and get creative
Halloween is one of the holidays where young adults actually get it right better than the younger versions of themselves. Although some still shop for the "his and hers cave people" costumes, most would rather find clever ways to take existing household clothing and items, mix with some colored duct tape, and voila!....you are George and Mary from It's a Wonderful Life in the "Buffalo Gals" scene, or the president's secret service. Most pre-made costumes are made out of plastic (which comes from petroleum), require a significant amount of energy to make, ship, and dispose of, generally are not recyclable, and do not get used more than once. Using what "we have around the house already" makes better use of resources and avoids the end of holiday disposal. As a compromise, put some effort into making a costume from fabric or more benign materials. Also, make it of enough quality that it can be passed around the family for a couple of years. My wife is making a Boo from Monsters, Inc. costume that should find its way on many 2-year olds for Halloweens to come.
2. Forgo long journeys around the neighborhood looking to see who can fill a Hefty bag with treats
Another great tradition of the twenty-something set is the Halloween party, pub crawl, etc. whereby everyone assembles at one place for food, fun, and a lot of guessing what's under the costume. Although I would recommend a more tame version of this for your 5-year-old, getting together at one house, with a mix of homemade and whole foods can still be about "having a treat" without resorting to amassing piles of processed food in individual plastic wrappers. By all means, do a walk around to the neighbors and the friends of the family, and get out into the neighborhood to socialize, but make the food focus one where you can control both the quantity and quality.
3. Speaking of quality, avoid the unnecessary
I have to admit, that given the time of day when trick-or-treating happens (right after work) and my general disdain for handing out processed food (along with my refusal to be the "apple guy"), we generally avoid the issue altogether and do not hand out candy. If you cannot give it up, and I know many people who love seeing wave upon wave of kids at their door, make some smart selections:
* avoid foods with any ingredients that are not "kitchen foods"
* avoid candy with GMO ingredients
* do not be afraid to offer natural, pre-packaged "fruit snacks" or coinage
* do some research into the working conditions of the people harvesting the food
4. Donate your excess
Kids are not dumb, and if you scrape off half of their booty, they will notice. Include them in the process of separating out unsafe and really unhealthy foods, and encourage them to put together a "give away" pile. Then take that pile to a shelter to share with kids who did not get the same opportunity they did. It will reduce the waste, the number of post-Halloween days your kids have a sugar high, and the stress of the day. Any opportunity to turn what otherwise would be selfish consumerism into a way to bring light to another should be pursued.
There are many who will read this and think of me as just another anti-capitalism, anti-holiday, fun-sucker...which couldn't be further from the truth. I do think that we have taken the easy way out over the years and have allowed the holiday to be "mass-produced" for us without regard for the use of resources and affect on our quality of life. By dialing back on some of the more damaging activities, and enhancing the social and creative aspects, we will get to a more enjoyable holiday.
I hope you all have a safe and happy Halloween!
Friday, October 26, 2012
Friday Five: October 26, 2012
We have spent decades operating under the principle that only once something is proven without a doubt to cause us harm do we consider restricting it (eg. second-hand smoke, asbestos, lead)...since we have proven to be relatively horrible at predicting what will or will not harm us, it is time for use to be much more cautious.
Toxicology: The learning curve
"What if, for a large and potent class of compounds, lower doses pose higher risks? A growing number of academic researchers are making just such a claim for endocrine disrupters, a large group of synthetic chemicals able to interact with cellular hormone receptors."
One of the consequences of not requiring private companies to include the cost of an adequate infrastructure maintenance fund in their business model (as well as insurance to pay for any damage from the failure of that infrastructure) is that the real cost of a product is undervalued, and rewards those who put short-term gain ahead of long-term protection.
Sunken Hazard: Aging oil pipelines beneath the Straits of Mackinac an ever-present threat to the Great Lakes
"According to Enbridge Energy’s emergency response plans, it takes the company a minimum of eight minutes to shut down a ruptured pipeline and isolate the flow of oil from the leaking pipe. Enbridge has estimated that a “worst case” discharge for line 5, with the eight minute shut off, would be up to 1.5 million gallons of oil released. However, that is hardly worst case. Enbridge did not react to the Kalamazoo River spill for 17 hours despite warnings from their leak detection system, and instead had to be told about that release by a local utility."
Now, hopefully, we can use technology and communications to better understand the true risks of the industries we develop and the choices we make that allow those industries to mature and take root.
U.S. to study cancer risks near 6 nuclear plants
"The commission is acting out of growing concern that using uranium to produce electricity may be dangerous even without accidents at nuclear plants. In addition, recent epidemiological studies in Germany and France suggest that the children living near nuclear reactors are twice as likely to develop leukemia."
As much as some of us rail against regulation, it provides us a measure of security thinking that our choices in our daily life cannot harm another person. The truth is, our regulations do not fully protect human life, and business without regulation could do harm to even more people.
Tribe near Vegas appealing EPA coal plant air rule
"Anderson said he's seen friends and neighbors sickened by soot, chemicals and ash waste produced by the three-unit, 557-megawatt plant built in the mid-1960s. Health officials have not verified those complaints because sample sizes of health studies are small."
If one's hope is that American ingenuity and spirit of innovation will win out, then we need to change the model for how we solve problems, because the truth is, we have gotten worse at solving problems, not better.
Why we can't solve big problems
"The venture capital business has always struggled to invest profitably in technologies, such as biotechnology and energy, whose capital requirements are large and whose development is uncertain and lengthy; and VCs have never funded the development of technologies that are meant to solve big problems and possess no obvious, immediate economic value. The account is a partial explanation that forces us to ask: putting aside the personal-computer revolution, if we once did big things but do so no longer, then what changed?"
Happy Friday!!
Toxicology: The learning curve
"What if, for a large and potent class of compounds, lower doses pose higher risks? A growing number of academic researchers are making just such a claim for endocrine disrupters, a large group of synthetic chemicals able to interact with cellular hormone receptors."
One of the consequences of not requiring private companies to include the cost of an adequate infrastructure maintenance fund in their business model (as well as insurance to pay for any damage from the failure of that infrastructure) is that the real cost of a product is undervalued, and rewards those who put short-term gain ahead of long-term protection.
Sunken Hazard: Aging oil pipelines beneath the Straits of Mackinac an ever-present threat to the Great Lakes
"According to Enbridge Energy’s emergency response plans, it takes the company a minimum of eight minutes to shut down a ruptured pipeline and isolate the flow of oil from the leaking pipe. Enbridge has estimated that a “worst case” discharge for line 5, with the eight minute shut off, would be up to 1.5 million gallons of oil released. However, that is hardly worst case. Enbridge did not react to the Kalamazoo River spill for 17 hours despite warnings from their leak detection system, and instead had to be told about that release by a local utility."
Now, hopefully, we can use technology and communications to better understand the true risks of the industries we develop and the choices we make that allow those industries to mature and take root.
U.S. to study cancer risks near 6 nuclear plants
"The commission is acting out of growing concern that using uranium to produce electricity may be dangerous even without accidents at nuclear plants. In addition, recent epidemiological studies in Germany and France suggest that the children living near nuclear reactors are twice as likely to develop leukemia."
As much as some of us rail against regulation, it provides us a measure of security thinking that our choices in our daily life cannot harm another person. The truth is, our regulations do not fully protect human life, and business without regulation could do harm to even more people.
Tribe near Vegas appealing EPA coal plant air rule
"Anderson said he's seen friends and neighbors sickened by soot, chemicals and ash waste produced by the three-unit, 557-megawatt plant built in the mid-1960s. Health officials have not verified those complaints because sample sizes of health studies are small."
If one's hope is that American ingenuity and spirit of innovation will win out, then we need to change the model for how we solve problems, because the truth is, we have gotten worse at solving problems, not better.
Why we can't solve big problems
"The venture capital business has always struggled to invest profitably in technologies, such as biotechnology and energy, whose capital requirements are large and whose development is uncertain and lengthy; and VCs have never funded the development of technologies that are meant to solve big problems and possess no obvious, immediate economic value. The account is a partial explanation that forces us to ask: putting aside the personal-computer revolution, if we once did big things but do so no longer, then what changed?"
Happy Friday!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)