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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)