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.

Request Monday (10/29/2012): Trick or treat?

"Is there anything to be done about celebrating Halloween in a more green way?"

-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 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!!

Adding Light Spotlight: Illinois RPS

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.

If you want to buy a house or a car, few of us have the savings to pay cash for it. What do we do instead? We seek out a private financier who will put up the money to purchase the item as long as we commit to make a series of payments over a term on which the lender and we can agree. We identify that the home or vehicle will add value to our lives, and before lending the money, the lender agrees that we have the ability to afford that value.

Now, what if, instead of considering a house or a car, you wanted to buy energy for your life from a renewable source that had not yet been tapped. Just like a house or a car, you would first need to find the source and means of obtaining it, then you would need to find a way to pay for the resource. We have grown so accustomed to buying conventional sources of energy that have fully mature and developed markets, that we have become insulated from the financing piece. In a mature market, the company that sells you your monthly energy supply uses a portion of your monthly payment to obtain the new resources, and on we go. How do we make this transaction happen with new sources of energy? What tools act like the regular payments from the home/car analogy to help energy purchasing look more like loan financing?

One solution to this problem comes in the form of governmental renewable portfolio standards (RPS). In its simplest form, an RPS establishes a statutory requirement for the minimum balance of total electricity energy purchases (we will get to the "who?" of the purchase in a second) that must come from a renewable source. Although many have advocated for a federal renewable portfolio standard (see here), currently it is the states that have set RPS throughout the country. Illinois is one of the twenty-nine states and DC to have a renewable portfolio standard, while seven others have less stringent goals for renewable energy. Among these, California has the most ambitious standard requiring that 25% of electricity purchases in the year 2016 come from renewable sources and 33% by 2020.

The Illinois RPS first came into law in 2007 as part of the Illinois Power Agency Act. (For a full description of the regulatory environment surrounding the creation of the IPA and electricity procurement in Illinois, see the Illinois State University [ISU] Center for Renewable Energy page.) In creating the Act, the state legislature set two pieces in motion: 1. it established an entity to facilitate contracts between the state utilities (ComEd and Ameren) and the generators to provide more cost effective service, and 2. it required the IPA to, when facilitating those contracts, require renewable sources of generation. The initial requirement included 2.0% of all electricity in 2008, sliding up to 10.0% in 2015, and then increasing by 1.5% every year after until reaching 25% in 2025. Within the Act, the legislators also required that 75% of each years purchase come from wind.

On the surface, the reason for the RPS came from wanting to provide "environmentally sustainable electric service at the lowest possible rate over time" to the people of Illinois. The reason for the wind requirement belied one of the real goals of the law: development of a wind power industry in Illinois. Back to our house/car example, if a company looking to develop a wind farm needs money to get the farm built, a financing entity will need something against which to loan the money. The Act allowed the IPA to enter into long-term contracts with suppliers in order to provide this collateral for the loan. In general, an RPS should be neutral to source - allowing the most cost effective sources to rise to the top of the market, however the secondary goal of market development for wind meant that for 75% of each year's requirement, the most cost effective source of wind rose to the top, while the remaining 25% could come from other sources. In general, those other sources included more wind and methane gas from landfills. Also, at the time of the Act's adoption, it covered only purchases through the IPA, and not through alternative retail energy suppliers (ARES). Utility purchases constituted the largest percentage of residential and small business methods to market (large retail customers had already left the utilities years early in favor of ARES) meaning the Act covered most of the state's smaller electricity customers.

Because of the movement toward ARES in the small customer retail market, and the slant toward wind energy purchases, the legislature made two changes to the act in 2008 and 2009 respectively. First, they added the applicability of the RPS to ARES, then added a 6% requirement for solar electricity starting in 2015. It remains to be seen whether the added solar requirement will lead to more solar in the state, or just to more purchases by the IPA and ARES for out-of-state solar. The Act provides a guide to purchasing first in-state electricity generation, then adjacent states, then - only if the requirement cannot be met with these - out-of-state generation. Because the IPA and ARES also have the requirement to procure the most cost effective electricity that meets the requirement, the out-of-state market (through renewable energy certificates [REC}) has provided the most cost effective solution. REC come from the environmental aspects of existing generation, and those aspects get priced on an open marketplace like any other commodity. This means that the REC can be less than the incremental price to actually generate the electricity (1). This may not hinder the generator, as their business model may not require the REC, and they merely use it to increase revenue. It has a huge effect on the ability for RPS to achieve new development...especially within the state.

The state legislature inadvertently exacerbated this issue in 2010 by amending the Illinois Power Agency Act to allow counties and municipalities to aggregate. The IPAA required the IPA to put together procurement plans for utilities to buy electricity. Previously, the utilities had entered into contracts that bound them to purchases for some of their load through 2013. IPA met the remainder, lowering prices, but could not renegotiate the remainder. This left a window of opportunity for ARES to get into the market, but the cost of going door-to-door would be cost-ineffective. The legislature, by allowing municipalities to aggregate their customers, created a path for ARES to grab thousands of customers at a time through a single procurement at the municipal level. Some of these communities desired more than the RPS level of renewable electricity, driving up the demand for renewable energy beyond what the state could supply, and furthering the purchase of electricity through out of state REC. The price currently being paid for these REC falls below the threshold for new resource development. With no change, the market will have to wait for the REC price to increase. It will be interesting to see if municipalities - that are largely entering into short-term contracts, and with politicians who look to the short term over the long term - drive the REC market enough to spur the development of more state resources, or if they bail when REC prices get too high.

There is no question that the RPS in Illinois must now adapt to the new market for retail electricity. More customers are moving to aggregated ARES contracts (Chicago, the largest municipality has a referendum on the November ballot), meaning the IPA has a smaller pool of customers for which they can enter into long-term contracts. ARES meet their requirements with short-term REC deals, meaning fewer financing agreements can take hold. This is not to say that RPS is the only or best way to help finance new renewable energy, but thus far it is the way Illinois has chosen. The legislature will have to, again, modify the Act to make RPS not just a feel-good source of increasing renewable energy, but one that makes Illinois more resilient and a greater center for technology development in the renewable energy field.

Request Monday (10/22/2012): The real debt we leave our children...

"I read your post in response to my question, and I generally support environmental issues, and hear all the arguments in favor of improving our use of energy and quality of life. I still look at that large national debt and think that if we do not fix our economy and pay that down, we will not have the resources to do anything. Why shouldn't we focus on paying down our debt first, then tackle climate and environmental issues?"

- Dan from Chicago -

Both questions are fair, and there is no question that we have to look at our priorities and get our national fiscal health in order. I contend that not addressing climate change posses an even more dire issue of fiscal health, and one that has fewer and more difficult solutions.

Some facts about our current debt, as of the end of our government's last fiscal year 2012 (September 30, 2012):

Total debt outstanding: $16,066 billion dollars
Held by public (1) $11,270 billion dollars
Intragovernmental (1) $ 4,796 billion dollars

The debt held by the public costs taxpayers through the repayments of bonds and bills to the holders, and through interest paid on that debt. As with a mortgage on a house, the payments remain fixed in terms of the dollars, but the value of a dollar decreases over time. Normalizing the values to their equivalent in today's dollars yields the following (assuming an average 1.5% inflation rate):

This is important because a fixed debt payment with interest does not escalate with inflation. On the other hand, the costs associated with climate change do increase because they include the labor and material costs for that year we perform the work, as well as the increasing impact of the pollution if unmitigated. In 2012, these costs included:

Air pollution: $246 billion
Water pollution: $ 4 billion
Health costs from climate change: $ 14 billion
Damage costs from climate change: $116 billion
Water shortages real estate losses, and food prices: $100 billion (estimated)

This totals $480 billion in 2012 dollars. As stated previously, this amount will escalate in two ways over the next 30 years (assuming we agree to cap our polluting activities at 2012 levels for the next 30 years): money will inflate and the damage will increase in impact. Assuming a 1.5% inflation rate (conservative) and a 5% increase in damage due to increasing levels of pollution (we only assume that we will stop getting worse, not that we will fix anything), the annual cost of responding to pollution is:

This does not include the value of lost human life, nor does it include the full value for real estate, water and food noted in the NRDC Cost of Climate Change report. Lastly, it does not assume increased pollution into the atmosphere, which is where we are trending without significant attention to the matter. Superimposing the two charts, you can see the concern:

The final issue with the comparison is twofold. First, our financial system is man made, and as such, we have tools to deal with the ramifications without increasing the problem. The natural world does not have any such tools. Once we create the damage, or set the damage in motion, we no longer have a way to change the system to help solve the problem without dedicating time and resources. Second, if we decided tomorrow to stop spending more than we receive each year (politically unlikely, but technically feasible as we did in 2000), we would effectively stop compounding the issue. If we fix our pollution at precisely the rate we generate it today, we continue to add to the problem.

In effect, we are a homeowner that makes $55,000 per year, and has two problems: we have a mortgage on a house equal to $250,000 and medical bills from being overweight and eating unhealthy that total about $8,000 a year. The way the mortgage on our house is set up, it will cost much in the first couple of year, but less and less per year as time goes on. Our medical bills will continue to rise even if we stop our habits from getting worse but do nothing to fix the damage done. We must find a way to reprioritize our national spending to focus on changing our habits AND fixing the damage. The good news is that all the fixes mean more money spent employing Americans and less money spent outside the country, and more money spent in sectors with high numbers of jobs per dollar and less money spent in sectors with low numbers of jobs per dollar. All it takes is acceptance of the problem and the will to solve it.



(1) Intragovernmental holdings of debt come from borrowing made by one of the national trust funds (Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund, or the fund that stores surplus receipts from social security taxes holds a little less than half of this intragovernmental debt). Public holdings of debt constitute those we have more familiarity with: holdings of treasury notes, bonds, etc. Of that debt, about 15% is held by the Federal Reserve Bank, 48% is held by foreign entities (with China and Japan leading the way at just under 10% of the $11,000 billion each), and the remainder (37%) by US citizens and local governments.

For purposes of this analysis, debt payment schedules on Treasuries (totalling $9 trillion of the $11 trillion) are used. The remaining debt has no specific payment schedule, and will change the relative scale of the situation but not the overall conclusion. Also, intra-governmental debt is debt owed by a government to itself, so at any time, the government could forgive this debt.

Friday Five: October 19, 2012

We lose so much of our sense of history, that anniversaries can provide a reminder of the good that we can do through national action to protect our quality of life.
A bolder clean water act for the next 40 years
"The Act also set an ambitious goal: by 1985 the nation’s waters should be “fishable and swimmable.” Although we missed that deadline, we are two-thirds of the way to achieving that goal. And we now know that reaching it will require addressing so-called “non-point” sources of pollution, including runoff from farms and city streets.
This year, as we celebrate the Act’s 40th anniversary, we can take pride in its accomplishments. But after four decades, the Act needs to be given new teeth and updated tools, both to meet its original goals as well as to address new water challenges that have emerged since its passage."

For those that think the work of the CWA is complete, as long as we have industry, we will need protections from the resources that industry uses and affects.
Arsenic from coal ash pollutes water resources
"Concern about the environmental impacts of coal-fired power generation has led to tighter regulation of the industry in recent years, but most measures have focused on reducing plants’ emissions into the atmosphere under the Clean Air Act, Vengosh says.
'We are saving the sky by putting in more scrubbers to remove particulates from power plant emissions,” Vengosh says. 'But these contaminants don’t just disappear. Our study shows they remain in high concentrations in the solid waste residue and wastewater the coal-fired power plants produce.'"

Some people may be turned off by the notion that a scientist might identify a threat as real and imminent...
Some climate scientist, in a shift, link weather to global warming
"Extreme events like drought, heat waves, intense rainfall, flooding and fires have prompted many people to reconsider the connection between the weather and the changing climate. Now, a handful of scientists are among them.
In a break with the mainstream scientific consensus, a few prominent climate scientists now argue that there have been enough episodes of drought and intense heat in the last 10 years to establish a statistical pattern of extreme weather due to global warming."

...but I offer that when considering the legitimacy of a threat, it is often best to follow the creature with the best instincts for self-preservation.
Top five threats to national security in the coming decade
"No matter which way the Defense Department turns, U.S. global interests will eventually intersect with the effects of a warming planet, analysts said.
While politicians debate the legitimacy of climate science, the Defense Department has recognized it has a practical, hard-security interest in tackling issues like its energy footprint..."

My paternal grandmother would have been 94 today. She lived her life...as have most of my family including my parents...on the "waste not, want not" philosophy. She did many of the things listed in the article, and even reused cooking grease (which we now know is not so great for you...but at least she was doing it for the right reason!).
30 signs your parents were frugal
"Frugal folks come from all sorts of backgrounds. Some were raised in typical American families with traditional buying and spending habits and came to embrace frugality much later in life. Others were raised by parents or grandparents who made simplicity part of everyday life -- from the way they cooked and cleaned to the way they fixed their cars and celebrated holidays."

Happy Friday!

Adding Light Spotlight: New York Local Law 87

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.

In 2007, New York City released a plan to change the city's relationship with energy and both the natural and built environments. PlaNYC covered all aspects of city life and governance, and regardless where you live, you should take a look at the plan for the specific strategies our nation's largest city has identified as the best for people, business, and the health of the city. Although many aspects of the plan have great value, the Greener Greater Buildings Plan and specifically Local Law 87 show how energy efficiency and environmental improvement can make sense to a community looking to stay strong or get stronger.

Many cities approached energy efficiency through energy codes establishing levels of performance that new buildings must meet. Addressing new buildings (and major renovations of existing buildings) makes sense, however much of the building stock that will make up our cities at the middle of the century have already been built. Any plan to improve the energy use pattern of a city, and therefore its environmental footprint, must address existing buildings. New York City did just that with Local Law 87.

Local Law 87 requires two actions by owners of buildings over 50,000 square feet (of which New York has 15,000 making up over half of the total built environment in the city) to perform two actions: a retro-commissioning and an energy audit. The retro-commissioning process looks at the existing operation of the energy-consuming systems of the buildings to spot defects in systems and to recommend adjustments to operation that will save energy. (Commissioning is the process of quality control that ensures that something built will work the first day it is operated. The phrase got its origin in the commissioning of ships which had better work the first day. Retrocommissioning returns a building to that same point: operating as if it were new.) Energy auditing catalogues the energy use of the building, breaks that use down by the systems that require energy, and makes recommendations for investments and improvements that will reduce the energy need of the facility. For the purposes of the law, the audit must comply with the terms of an ASHRAE level II (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers), The law requires owners to perform the audit and retro-commissioning every 10 years, and phases in the buildings over the 10 years from 2013-2022. Owners who wish to get ahead of the game can perform their audit and retrocommissioning prior to 2013, and will not have to perform it again until the next cycle starting in 2023 (which for some owners could mean they do not have to do it for another 20 years).

Both of these requirements sound great, and requiring owners to measure and report their energy use (which in combination with Local Law 84, this law does) as well as know their options for improving their usage will certainly drive some to make improvements. The law, however, does not require that an owner make any of the recommended improvements. Some recommendations from the retrocommissioning process have no cost associated with them, so one can safely assume the owner will implement. However, any investments identified by either process will compete with direct business investment. New York City has identified this obstacle, and has developed a tool to help overcome it: the New York Energy Efficiency Corporation (NYEEC). The NYEEC, a non-profit corporation, partners with investor entities and energy service companies to facilitate funding for the projects identified in the energy audits. The owners make a commitment to use proceeds from any energy savings to pay down the original investment.

The implementation of Local Law 87 has three main benefits. First, as stated previously, it puts building efficiency in the forefront of the owner's mind, at least long enough to hopefully inspire action. Second, implementation of any of the recommendations reduces the energy use of the building and local area; this reduction paves the way for new load within the community, or for an overall reduced reliance on source of energy outside the community. Third, the work to perform the audits and retrocommissioning tasks requires local labor with skills in the building construction and operation trades. These jobs cannot be outsources, and are most cost-effectively done by local tradespeople with skills in building construction or operation. Everyone benefits.

Take a longer look at the Local Law 87, and PlaNYC. You will find many interesting opportunities for your community as you embark on a mission to change your relationship with energy and to mitigate the resulting environmental impact....and you could create much needed local jobs in the process.

Request Monday (10/15/2012): Let the sun shine?

"I am replacing the roof on my house and would like to do solar. How can I make that happen in the most cost-effective way possible."

-Jim from Chicago-

I like your thinking, but would recommend a longer-term approach to implementing solar on your house. A strategy of energy efficiency, load shifting through geothermal exchange, and then solar will not only be more cost effective, but also better for the environment.

Using a typical Illinois home as an example, the residence requires almost 110 million Btu (British thermal units) of energy per year. Of this total, residents use about 75% in natural gas and 25% in electricity. Even with that breakdown of usage, the average customer will spend about $1,300 per year in total energy cost (depending on the age and systems within the house), which breaks down to about 40% (about $550) on natural gas and 60% (about $735) on electricity. From this, it is easy to see the allure of residential solar electricity since we do not get as much energy per dollar as with natural gas.

So let us look at a couple of different investments that a homeowner could make relative to energy and see how they stack up.

1. Solar photovoltaic system
A typical Illinois home would require a 5 kW solar array to supply the 9,172 kWh per year. That requires an investment of $29,450 at current prices of about $5.89/W, and saves the homeowner around $735 per year. (Ignoring any battery systems, interconnect fees, or creative pricing plans.)
That's the same as investing in a bank account and having 75% of that amount in the bank after 30 years. On the whole, not a great investment, and it only covers a small portion of the energy use in the home.

2. Geothermal heat exchange system
For that same Illinois home, we could install a 3 ton (1 ton = 12,000 Btu/hour) system to provide the heating and cooling energy transfer for the home. This has the benefit of providing air conditioning in the summer, and taking the heat from the house and storing it in the ground for use in the winter. These systems cost between $10,000 and $15,000 for a retrofit of a home, and can reduce the energy needed for heating and cooling by between $500 and $750 per year for the average home. For this investment, it would be the same as putting money in the bank and after 30 years, having 100% to 225% of the amount invested. That sounds like a much better economic model.

3. Energy efficiency
Lastly, we could implement simple energy efficiency measures at the house: insulate the walls and attic and any hot water piping ($2,000), retrofit all lights with LED or compact fluorescent bulbs ($2,000), and replace appliances with Energy Star rated appliances ($9,000). Performing all of these upgrades in a home would save the homeowner around $800 per year. This equates to an investment over 30 years that would be worth 240% of the initial value. Of all the options, that makes the most financial sense.

In reality, the best approach uses all three of these. A homeowner should start by taking advantage of all the energy efficiency options they can, then, with a reduced energy need, install a lower cost geothermal system. With the electricity use left (mostly lighting, computer systems, and other plug loads), then the solar system makes much sense. In the overall picture, if you have the $29,450 to invest in your home, it could be spent in this way:

$13,000 for energy efficiency
$ 5,000 for geothermal (based on the new reduced load)
$10,000 for solar electricity (based on the new reduced load)

None of these examples included grants or incentives, which are definitely available. In general, someone ends up paying for the incentive, so comparing options makes more sense without them. When actually choosing what to do, investigate all the available incentives and use that to pay down the amount you have to invest. Also, for the geothermal and solar pieces, it makes sense to look toward alternative financing mechanisms such as PACE, which uses increased property value to fund the improvement, or green mortgages that allow increased mortgage payments based upon decreased utility payments.


Calculation of typical residential energy use:
Annual IL energy use in residential: 417 Bcf natural gas, 48,583 MkWh (per EIA)
Total number of IL housing units: 5,297,318 (per Census Bureau)
Average size of housing unit: 2,000 sf (estimate)
Total IL residential living area: 10,594,636,000 sf

Average natural gas usage: 39.36 cf/sf
Average electricity usage: 4.586 kWh/sf

Typical home energy use:
78,720 cf of natural gas or 787.2 therms ($0.70/therm) $551.04
9,172 kWh of electricity ($0.08/kWh) $733.76

Friday Five: October 12, 2012

Clean coal is an unattainable utopia (and entropically impossible), and to think that we cannot have an economy without subjugating significant sections of our population to environmental and personal harm is the same as thinking our economy would not survive without slavery. We are smart enough to make it happen.
Sierra Presents the Cost of Coal
"When mining companies level West Virginia mountains to get at the coal beneath, towns disappear. When a Michigan power plant burns coal to make electricity, it triggers asthma in children nearby. When coal ash blows onto a Paiute reservation in Nevada, elders die."

Thankfully, the market (even with the current subsidies to the polluting technology) is starting to find that coal is an expensive alternative (and it would be even more so if we required those who mine and burn to pay the total cost of their business).
Yes, coal is dying, but no, EPA is not the main culprit
"In fact, say the authors, the change is 'primarily due to changing market conditions, not environmental rule revisions, which have trended towards more lenient requirements and schedules'

And finally, there’s the possibility of substantial new support for clean energy and/or some sort of price on carbon. Their chances seem remote now, and I certainly don’t expect them by 2016, but … by 2020? Well, 2020 is a long way away. We can’t stay stupid about climate change forever."


We are also finally starting to understand that growth and expansion of high quality of life - the real purpose of an economy - does not have a direct link to how much energy we use.
Savers Push $374 Billion U.S. Utility Industry to Shift
"Electricity use in the U.S. declined 2 percent this year through Sept. 22, and was down 3 percent from a year earlier as consumers buy light bulbs that burn 25 percent fewer watts and install technology that turns off appliances when the delivery grid is strained. The industry produced $374 billion in revenue in 2011, the Edison Electric Institute said.

Power and coal consumption dropped last year to 2,790 British thermal units per real dollar of U.S. gross domestic product, a 32 percent drop from 1981 levels and a record low for data collected since 1973, the Energy Department said on its website."


It is important that we continue this trend, because the decisions we make now and the infrastructure we put in place will have lasting impacts on our behavior.
Greenhouse gases rise with GDP but are slower to fall in recession
"Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by an average of 0.73 percent for every 1 percent growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Richard York of the University of Oregon wrote in his report. But emissions fell just 0.43 percent for every percent decline in GDP per capita, he added, based on a review of World Bank statistics of more than 150 nations from 1960 to 2008."

Once we understand that we do not need vast amounts of energy to have a high quality of life, we can see the value in local, renewable, natural and less harmful forms of energy transfer.
Wind Power Adds Jobs and Increases Wealth in Rural Communities
"'For every megawatt of additional wind in County A, one would expect an $11,150 increase in income,' said Ryan Wiser, Staff Scientist and Deputy Group Leader in the Electricity Markets and Policy Group at LBL. Along with the increase in income, there was also an average 0.48 increase in net jobs, and Wiser added that the net job measure is meaningful only when most wind farms are bigger than 1 MW."

Happy Friday!

Adding Light Spotlight: WISER and the Galvin Center

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.

Do you want to know how the community of the future will power its quality of life? Do you wonder how we can support our lifestyle without polluting the air and water that sustain us? Are you interested in what technology jobs we will need to maintain our economy?

The answers to all these questions can be found at two research centers associated with the Illinois Institute of Technology: the Wanger Institute for Sustainable Energy Research (WISER) and the Galvin Center for Electricity Innovation. Located on the 16th Floor of the IIT Tower, both look to establish a new energy future whereby we rely on lower carbon forms of energy to sustain our quality of life, and both rely on the partnerships afforded by the location in the Chicagoland area. Whereas WISER casts its net broadly across the spectrum of energy systems and solutions, Galvin Center focuses on micro-grids and covers everything from technology development to small business development to workforce training.

Formed in 2010 by Dr. Mohammad Shahidehpour with the financial support of the late Bob Galvin, the Galvin Center for Electricity Innovation has quickly risen to national stature for its research into smart grid/micro-grid related technologies and systems as well as for its organization of a regional smart-grid cluster and workforce training center. The Center rose from the work IIT started with the Galvin Electricity Initiative and the US Department of Energy on one of the first smart micro-grids in the nation at the Main Campus of IIT on Chicago's south side. With shared funding from the university and DOE, IIT is upgrading its outdated grid to one that maintains power to facilities during a single-point failure, that allows for greater ease in connecting renewable sources of energy, that stores electricity for when it is needed, and that provides greater, more reliable information about the status of electricity use. While that project moved forward, IIT sought more opportunity to leverage the new microgrid for on-site wind technology, battery storage, solar-powered electric vehicle charging, and much more. Recognizing that regional smart grid development will require a robust infrastructure of businesses, technicians, and professionals to support the development and maintenance of the new technology, the Galvin Center was formed with the help of further DOE funding to create a sustaining location for workforce training and curriculum development. Working with local unions, veterans retraining programs, and vocational education programs, the workforce training program not only supports retraining of current professionals, it develops new professionals for the burgeoning marketplace. With new programs in cyber-security, building automation systems, and battery storage, the Galvin Center continues to push for innovation in the electricity marketplace. As highlighted by the proceedings of the recent Great Lakes Symposium on Smart Grid and the New Energy Economy, the region has not only grasped the concept of smart grid, but with the leadership of the Galvin Center and its regional partners, the region is ready for the future.

WISER uses a more cross-disciplinary model to approach the questions of how we will generate the electricity that will flow through our new smart grids, how we will use energy to maintain our quality of life, how we will balance our need for energy against other resources, and how we will get from our present energy economy to one that relies less heavily on the atmospheric release of carbon. Led by Dr. Hamid Arastoopour, and started in 2007 with a generous donation from IIT Trustee Ralph Wanger, WISER built on the previous work of the Energy Technology Program and Energy and Sustainability Institute to establish a world-class program for research and development of new energy technology. Tapping into the university's strong Armour College of Engineering, as well as the equally recognized College of Architecture, College of Psychology, Institute for Food Safety and Health, Institute of Design, Stuart School of Business and Chicago-Kent College of Law, WISER sought solution methods outside the single-disciplinary approach. This approach has led to cooperative programs among Stuart and Armour faculty to analyze processes in Cook County government to promote sustainability within the organization, fuel cell and hydrogen storage research amongst peers in several engineering departments, and improved building design and control through research in architecture and electrical/computer engineering. With a Board of Advisors that reflects the diverse knowledge base of the region, WISER not only builds on a strong past, but looks to a bright future.

One of the strongest elements of the work of WISER and Galvin Center comes in the implementation of the "living laboratory" concept on the IIT campus. Starting with the work on the smart grid, and continuing through implementation of solar-powered vehicle charging (using IIT-developed solar panels and battery storage technology), all the way to and through installing an on-site, in-vessel composter based upon an idea and design development from a class of IIT students, WISER and Galvin have looked to test ideas and technologies within the physical framework of the campus. The IIT Facilities Department has worked hand-in-hand with the research faculty to make that vision happen, to the point of including education opportunities in as many facilities upgrades as is practical and providing feedback on areas of university operation that need significant research and development. This cooperative spirit and truly innovative approach to education sets WISER, Galvin Center, and IIT apart from other institutions. If you every have a chance to stop by the IIT Tower, it is worth calling ahead for a tour of the !6th Floor, WISER and the Galvin Center.

Request Monday $1 Short Edition (October 8, 2012): It's the stupid, economy..

"I am on a meal plan at college where we pay as we go. No "all you care to eat". If I buy healthy salad and fruits, I always end up spending more than if I bought a burger and fries. Why does healthy food cost more? It makes it tough for a college kid to make the healthy choice."

-Shannon from Lincoln Park-

If you think it is tough on a college student, try feeding a family of four or five on a minimum wage salary. Your question touches on a huge issue over the last thirty years. In that time, real incomes have stayed flat or declined, meanwhile the cost of healthy food has increased at about 2/3 the rate of inflation while junk food has increased between 15-30% the rate of inflation. As a nation, we spend more today as a percent of income for transportation, housing and insurance, leaving less money for food. With this as a backdrop, here are a couple of reasons why healthy foods cost more, and more importantly, some things you can do about it.

1. The market rewards innovation
The term healthy foods generally refers to mildly-processed products that retain their nutrient value. It not only means farmer's-market produce, but cage-free eggs and milk, organic foods, and sometimes, local produce. The processes for getting these foods from farm-to-fork have not changed substantially in 30 years, nor is there much to change about them. Because of this, there is not much incentive for innovation, and therefore, little to be done about the price of the product. (It is akin to the issue facing symphony orchestras these days...it takes the same number of musicians to play Beethoven's 9th today as it did when he wrote it...costs just keep going up.)

Processed food, on the other hand, has ample opportunity for innovation in manufacturing and production. Food additives that retain the "look and feel" with cheaper ingredients succeed in bringing prices down, as do genetic modifications that change crop yields. Also, we can change the specific amount of a food over time (ever so slightly) without tipping off the customer. (I'm looking at you Clif Bar!!!) Replacing human beings with machines and higher-priced commodity goods with lower-priced ones continue to "innovate" the food industry. Also, we have had a relatively-low-priced energy market for the past 30 years, and processed foods generally require more energy than healthy foods.

2. Government subsidies
As those following the Farm Bill will attest, the federal government subsidizes our nation's farming industry. This largely goes to the large mono-crops of corn, wheat and soy. Because of this, over the past half-century, we have a whole industry of food additives dedicated to increasing the use of corn, soy, and wheat products (high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, mono-sodium glutamate, lecithin). These products generally rely on energy-intesive fertilizers, are machine harvested, and are over-grown due to the subsidy. When one industry has a heavily subsidized product, and another does not, it changes the playing field.

3. And now a word from our sponsor
We have seen the "Got Milk" campaign from the California Milk Processors Board, or the "Incredible Edible Egg" for the American Egg Board. Outside of these, national advertising for food commodities does not match that for branded food products (which admittedly are not all processed, but which largely are). My children see commercials for fruit snacks, chips, and pastry treats far more often than they see them for apples, oats, and leafy greens. This changes expectations at an early age. Apples have not changed in look or taste for hundreds of years (although I highly recommend Grapples or honey crisp apples for some variety), whereas everyone has a new "energy bar", "fruit snack" or "healthy cereal" each year. This captures imagination, and feeds our desire to have more choices. If advertising did not change minds, we would stop doing it...but that has not happened as of yet. That leads us to our final point...

4. Supply and demand
The marketplace always rewards incumbents...those industries that have grown and solidified by following the status quo. Food processors like Tyson, Kraft, and Pepsico have large organizations and significant funding to influence the marketplace. Local farmers or distributors for natural or healthy foods do not have such an advantage. By maintaining a healthy stream of supply, and the margins low, processed food developers can make less money per product than the healthy food supplier. And let's face fact...the processed food tastes good. We never see the cost of that food reflected in the price of purchase (the health care costs for obesity or diabetes), so there is no incentive for that industry to move...unless consumers demand it. This is especially true in corporate meal plans. Many people buy the junk food options, keeping prices low, while fewer people buy the salad bar, meaning they have to charge more to keep the "profit center" active.

So what can you do?

1. For your college meal plan, demand that the provider publish the nutrient content of each product and its price per pound (not calorie). Healthy foods generally cost less per pound, but more per calorie. Also, work with your school to get a look at the way the food service is set up. If individual outlets are individual entities (salad bar separate from burger place), you could see two different businesses competing with each other. The university food service should be one entity, so it should be possible to price the products at market plus markup (the profit and overhead of the provider). Ask that, at the very least, that markup come evenly across the products offered in the university...and at best be assigned on a "per pound" basis.

2. Stay strong in your purchasing decisions. Although a "Hostess Cupcake" gives you more calories per dollar than a kitchen-made soup, apportion your spending to reflect the value. This will require discipline, and a bit of sacrifice. Mix in some great kitchen-made treats, or free-range meat/dairy products and you'll have all the flavor without the health issues.

3. Take advantage of farmer's markets, community-supported agriculture, and other ways of dealing direct with the grower. Prices tend to drop, you have more buying power, and a much better variety of seasonal foods. Then, when you go to the store with the rest of your food budget, you'll have more to spend on good food.

Sources:
Healthy Food Costs vs. Unhealthy Food Costs
The Influence of Taxes and Subsidies on Energy Purchased in an Experimental Purchasing Study
A High Price for Healthy Food
Healthy Food Isn't Necessarily More Expensive Than Junk Food
Junk Food Tax or Health Food Subsidy – Which Results in Healthier Food Purchases?
FoodProcessing.com

Friday Five: October 5, 2012

Now this is putting your money where your mouth (and lungs, and throat, and heart, and skin, and endocrine system...) is.
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."

There are signs that as we urbanize, we start to look at priorities and judge that maybe having one car for every 1.3 people is too many and we can still live a high quality of life without a personal vehicle.
The rich world's peak car moment: Car-pooling, car-sharing, car-ignoring
"[C]ar marketers are both accepting and pushing back against the "peak car" moment in the West. They understand that a weak economy makes big-ticket purchases hard. They understand that young people are getting crushed between expensive education and cheap jobs. They accept that cars have lost that halo of hipness they owned in the 1970s. But they also see a future beyond peak car abroad."

While other countries with higher qualities of life determine that renewable energy systems can form a large percentage of the generation mix....we debate about how much to continue subsidizing cola and oil.
German coal-fired generation of electricity falls while renewable generation rises
"The percentage of coal-fired electricity in German electricity generation has fallen from 56.7% in 1990 to 43.5% last year — a decrease of more than 10% despite a increase in total electricity generation during the same period of about 10%. At the same time the share of renewable energy in the electricity mix has increased from 3.6% to 19.9%, mostly due to the rapid development of wind energy and biomass."

So it is good news that we are starting to develop off-shore wind...and once the first offshore wind project moves forward, all signs point to the Great Lakes being one of the next "hot spots" for wind development.
Deepwater to build first US off-shore wind farm
"The privately held U.S. wind power developer plans to begin construction of the $250 million, 30-megawatt (MW) Block Island project by early 2014, ahead of a farm proposed by Cape Wind long expected to be the nation's first offshore facility."

Meanwhile, Chicago announces a small step forward, then decides to take it very slowly and deliberately.
Emanuel: City will stick with voluntary water meters
"By 2015, the average annual water and sewer bill for a single-family home in Chicago with a water meter is set to go from roughly $339 in 2011 to $694. The average bill for a single-family home without a meter is set to go from $450 in 2011 to $920 in 2015."

Adding Light Spotlight: Argonne National Labs

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.

Driving down the vestiges and remnants of Route 66 as it leaves Chicago and heads toward downstate Illinois, you might never guess that tucked within the forest preserves southwest of the city lies the birthplace of contained nuclear energy. Formed as a "safer" location for the continued experimentation of controlled nuclear reactions that Enrico Fermi started at the University of Chicago, Argonne (named for the Palos forest in which it was first situated before moving to its current Lemont/Burr Ridge home) has led the research and development of peaceful nuclear energy reactors, the development of nuclear submarines, and visualization technologies (like x-ray and ultrasound) that have impacted the lives of almost every American. Growing up on Chicago's South Side, I never knew of Argonne National Laboratory until my junior year of high school, and then, I only heard about it because my physics teacher worked there in the summers. Fermilab (ironically enough named after the researcher whose work started Argonne) always received more attention from the press for having the nation's (and during my childhood, the world's) largest particle accelerator. While Fermi and the trailblazing adventurers who worked there searched for the fundamental building blocks of all nature, the worker bees at Argonne quietly developed understanding and technologies that have changed life in our country and the world.

My wife and I recently attended the Argonne Energy Showcase, an annual event where Argonne opens its doors to the public to meet with the researchers and learn about some of their work. I must admit that although I had some basic familiarity with their work through my time at IIT, I was not aware of the breadth of research activities that go on there. Here is a sampling of the variety of technologies and strategies under development at Argonne:

Nanotechnology: Energy and Material Applications

Some of the most exciting research comes in the area of nano tech. Particles one millionth the size of an ant and tubes one one-hundreth the size of a human hair can create vilms and structures and systems capable of providing strength with less material, films to protect or enhance, or even remove pollutants from water. Some of the most interesting applications come in the field of energy. For solar cells that convert sunlight to energy, typical efficiencies (energy output for solar energy input) max out at 31%, but with some nano scale gold - which at large scale does not react with other elements but at nano scale reacts more readily - we can capture more of the non-visible spectrum of light and produce more energy with more readily available materials than current structures. Nano particles also can extend the life and efficiency of batteries by coating internal elements to prevent degradation. In the growing arena of biofuels, nano particles can mimic natural processes to produce fuels from cellulose and other sugars. All of these hold hope that we can develop energy technologies that rely more on naturally available sources of energy and reduce our need for fossil fuels. Even with some great advances, we still run up against economic concerns unless we reduce our energy demand, which leads us to...

Building Systems, Modeling, and Risk Assessment

Argonne recognizes that buildings use a significant amount of our nation's energy resources, and as such if we are to make renewable energy systems more applicable to our country, we need to use energy more efficiently. The Renewable Energy Research and Development area of Argonne work with the Department of Energy's Building Technology program and regional partners to develop measurement and verification tools, enhance building management systems, and develop building retrofit strategies to reduce demand. The Decision and Information Sciences (DIS) Division develops modeling tools and risk management strategies that improve the design of buildings and organizational approaches to resource management. The Environmental Science Division has research initiatives in air quality monitoring that hope to better identify issues to allow for more proactive management and remediation. This area shows great, immediate promise because the systems involved are easily enhanceable and applicable in the near term.

Fuel Cells and Smartgrid

These areas of research overlap because they represent the great opportunity for the modernization of our electricity generation and distribution system. As part of the DOE Hydrogen Program, researchers at Argonne are looking for the best catalysts and designs to improve the cost and efficiency of fuel cells that will complement renewable energy generation systems to provide a storage mechanism that we can use in conjunction with better battery systems. DIS also coordinates research into modeling and flow monitoring systems that can help grid operators more effectively manage electricity flow to reduce waste.

Argonne has too many other research activities to include in one article: from continued research into nuclear energy, hazardous material transport, and climate change, to photon source rays and electron microscopy. The Chicago region needs to become more familiar with the great work being done at Argonne. For its part, Argonne has become an integral part of the Illinois technology development scene, a willing and well-known partner to those in the scientific community. Take a virtual tour and see for yourself...then maybe at next year's Energy Showcase, you can see things up close.

Request Monday (10/01/2012): What to do, what to do....

"I really want to something to be a part of the environmental solution. What's the first step I can take?"

-Sarah from Urbana, IL-

The first step on the journey is perhaps the most straightforward and could be the most difficult...it has to do with our choices and our priorities. When we say that government is not doing enough to protect our natural resources and health, or that business is not doing enough to protect our natural resources and health, we really mean that we are not doing enough to protect our natural resources and health. Entities like government and business merely reflect our priorities, priorities that we display through the choices that we make.

One of the first choices we can make is to actively participate more with people near us. The pie charts below show the average time spent daily on various activities related to our life. The one on the left shows the average American in 1950 and the one on the right, the average American in 2000 (data from the Census Bureau). The most striking change comes not in work or sleep, which stayed relatively constant, but rather in the amount of time we spent interacting with others.

In 1950, the average American spent over three-and-a-half hours a day either socializing and communicating (about 1.85 hours) or volunteering (about 1.85 hours). Flash forward to 2000, and the average American spent just over one-half-of-one hour in those same activities (0.52 and 0.13 respectively). We spend more time in passive activities like watching TV than in the act of working cooperatively with others, or even basic socializing. It comes as no surprise then that our communities have less resilience, and people feel less connected. Robert Putnam explored these concepts in his works Bowling Alone and Better Together. When we socialize less, we have weaker social capital from which to build strong communities.

At the same time, we spend more of our financial capital on products and services that drain resources from our communities. In a similar data set, the Census Bureau tracks the expenditures of the average American. The table below lists the differences between 1950 and the early 2000s. Note the drops in food, personal care services, and clothing....all items normally associated with local retail, and the increases in transportation, housing, and pension/insurance. With fewer, truly local banks, the latter group does not generally consist of entities that would specifically reinvest those expenditures back into the community.

If we want a quality of life that minimizes environmental damage and promotes equity, then we need to return to some of the ideas that made us stronger in the first place. This is not a call for socialism or for isolationism, but more to have the pendulum swing back more toward building communities that supply more of our needs, so that we do not have to rely on energy as much. The less we rely on energy from polluting sources, the stronger we become, and the more we take personal responsibility for our choices.