This week saw many stories about the damage our current choices have made, and the foolishness with which our legislators and even judges push an economy based upon corporation-centered thinking instead of human-centered thinking. Amidst all that, we saw a strong stream of news that focused on the probable - not just the possible...on what we have already done - not just on what we hope to do. The most inspiring of all these looked at whether it is a dream to move toward renewable energy in our lifetimes. It turns out, as I have often said, that we absolutely can move to a renewables-dominated economy in the next twenty years....all it takes is the will to make it happen.
Life after oil and gas
A National Research Council report released last week concluded that the United States could halve by 2030 the oil used in cars and trucks compared with 2005 levels by improving the efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles and by relying more on cars that use alternative power sources, like electric batteries and biofuels.
Just days earlier a team of Stanford engineers published a proposal showing how New York State — not windy like the Great Plains, nor sunny like Arizona — could easily produce the power it needs from wind, solar and water power by 2030. In fact there was so much potential power, the researchers found, that renewable power could also fuel our cars.
In the past five years, we have demonstrated beyond a doubt that we can decouple energy use, emissions production, and economic growth. We no longer need as much energy to power our economy, and since we already stand at a per capita energy use rate that is twice that of Japan or Western Europe, this gives us great hope that our use can continue to fall while we recover economically. Even though part of our emissions reduction comes from fuel-switching instead of reduction in use, the future looks bright as prices for fuel are starting to once again reflect the scarcity of the resource.
A model for reducing emissions
"What stands out most in this shift, however, is not environmental regulation or public concern about global warming but the price of energy and market-driven technological advancements. 'It wasn’t so much a policy shift that brought carbon emissions down,' said James Hamilton, an energy economist at the University of California, San Diego. 'It was irresistible market forces.'
The United States consumes 9 percent less energy for each $1 of G.D.P. than it did five years ago. Total energy use has fallen about 5 percent in the last five years."
On top of that, we have seen an emergence of bi-partisan support for the expansion of wind energy - and more importantly community wind energy - into our economy...
Iowa bill would support farmer-owned wind installations
"The bill, SF 372, would require all electric utilities in the state to purchase power from customers’ wind turbines at a guaranteed price for up to ten years. The program would apply only to wind projects built on agricultural land with a nameplate capacity of 20 megawatts or less. And power purchases would be capped at 50 percent of the utility’s sales growth in the previous year."
Meanwhile, in what many consider a sluggish year at best for economic growth, we saw record growth in the solar industry, with states across the political spectrum contributing to the historic rise.
Sun shining bright: A record-breaking year for U.S. solar installations
"The report, from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), points out that the 2012 growth has taken both solar photovoltaics (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) to notable new heights. By year’s end, the 3,313 new megawatts meant that the U.S. had 7,221 megawatts of PV and 546 megawatts of CSP online, enough to meet the energy needs of some 1.2 million homes."
To put the proverbial icing on the cake, this surge in renewable energy and reduction in carbon emissions has come with a net positive increase in job growth - as many have predicted. If you shift spending from fossil energy into human capital, you save money and create local, stable jobs. We only lack the will to accelerate this cycle, restore our economy, and improve our quality of life for generations to come.
Green jobs grow four times faster than others
"Green jobs of course cut across industries. By the BLS definition, they include work that is primarily involved in the production of green goods and services -- for instance, renewable energy, pollution reduction and recycling, and natural resources conservation. The agency also counts as green those jobs that involve education and training related to environmental compliance.
The growth in green jobs in 2011 parallels a surge in public and private money plowed into clean energy that year. Total investments in clean energy business and development jumped 42% in the U.S. in 2011 from the prior year, to $48 billion, according to an earlier report by Pew Charitable Trusts. That was more than any other country, with China and Germany not far behind."
Happy (Good) Friday!
Friday, March 29, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Daily Decisions: Insulating the home
Throughout 2013, Adding Light will take a look at practical decisions that everyone can take to contribute to making our communities more ecologically and economically resilient. Everything in this Daily Decisions comes from experience or research applied directly by our family or people we know directly.
US households spend up to $2,000 per year on utilities (about 12% of annual home expenses and 4% of average annual household income). We see this as an unavoidable cost of living, and until recently have given energy expenses only a passing glance in considering where we live. Location, schools, safety, access to transportation...these considerations have far outweighed the gas bill when selecting a place to raise a family. Starting with the natural gas price run-up in the mid 2000s, and restarting as of late with recent improvements in the housing market, energy use has begun to show some influence on the market (appraisers now have to include energy efficiency as an assessment point, home energy rating systems like HERS, and green building rating systems like LEED have shown some traction in the marketplace). In response to calls for improved energy efficiency, states, utilities, and the federal government have started initiating incentive programs to help homeowners improve energy use in their homes, perhaps save money, and improve overall energy efficiency across the country. Reaching out to individual homeowners can present a challenge, and convincing them to invest in energy efficiency can further that challenge. Recently, my wife and I put our home through one such incentive program: Energy Impact Illinois.
Energy Impact Illinois provides both analysis and incentive to improve energy efficiency in each home. The program includes a home envelope assessment (valued at $500) for $100; the assessment looks for air gaps, insulation opportunities, and other chances to minimize the heat lost by the structure. The pictures above show my house and a thermal image of my house during the test. Red or white areas note significant heat loss, while blue shows areas of good insulation. Not surprisingly, my one-hundred-plus-year-old house lights up like stoplight, showing major opportunity for improvement. In addition to the exterior, the assessor looks at the interior of the house to find areas where cool air might be leaking into the structure. The picture below shows how poorly constructed an addition to the house was. The blue or black areas show locations with the most impact. After the assessment, the specialists analyze the information, create a model, and project which envelope improvement opportunities will result in the greatest reduction in heat loss, and therefore, the greatest savings to us.
The report on our home included three major improvements:
1. Place significant insulation into the upper roof/flat attic above our third floor.
2. Create new, highly insulated wall structures in our attic.
3. Provide an insulated cover for our whole-house exhaust fan.
Although other opportunities exist, these three will provide the bulk of the energy savings and any additional work will result in less energy savings for the cost of installation. For the three items above, it would normally cost us $5,400 if we were to contract for the work ourselves. The Energy Impact Illinois program includes a $1,750 direct rebate if the work will result in greater than fifteen-percent savings in heating energy to the homeowner. The combination of items above results in a forty-percent savings, easily meeting the program goals. The rebate reduces our cost to about $3,650. (Note that the rebate does not require us to submit any additional paperwork as it is paid directly from EII to the contractor.) With an annual heating bill of about $1,400, our savings of $650 per year means we will earn back our investment in about five and one-half years. With savings and certificate of deposit rates where they are, that investment on the surface makes financial sense. In addition to the direct savings, EII will supply me with a certificate that I have gone through the program, and can list the assessment and reduction on any future listings if I sell the house. Lastly, my grandfather always said that the value in a home is not in the investment, but the value it gives you in supporting your life. The improvements will reduce drafts and create a home that has greater comfort.
We will not know the actual results of the program until we go through another heating season, so I will update you all then. One thing I do know is that not everyone has $1,000 to $5,000 lying around looking for a place to invest. The rebate program is a great idea, but it ends this May, and even if it were to continue, there are several other support mechanisms needed to make any ongoing program viable.
1. On-bill financing: utilities have a great opportunity to buy large amounts of energy efficiency and use the funding streams to support a gradual changing of their business model (see here). If a homeowner can pay for the improvements directly out of their energy savings, and those payments can stay with the residence instead of the homeowner, that gives people both the opportunity and the incentive to get the work done.
2. PACE: Property assessed clean energy has recently entered the marketplace, and although it focuses mostly on new energy installations, it has a place in efficiency as well. It works similarly to on-bill financing, except that a local taxing district arranges for the financing, and the homeowner pays an additional assessment on their property taxes for a period of time to pay off the investment. On-bill financing has the cost and savings in the same statement, so this does not have a similar ease, but it has the same effect of shifting costs from one line of a homeowner's budget to another without significant change to the overall expenses.
3. Local micro-loans: Local banks already excel at auto, medical, and specialty loans. A person with good credit can pay off a new car in four-to-five years. Although rates and availability would increase for loans directly to a homeowner as opposed to the first two options, these have the added benefit of keeping capital in the community. A bank would look at the loan as a specialized home-equity loan, backed by the increased value of the house and the verified energy savings (making the use of certified assessors critical), with a term to match the level of energy savings.
Any of these three would help struggling homeowners, who may not be able to come up with capital, still create significant energy reduction in their home. With local assessors and contractors (and perhaps even local financing), homeowners can turn this reduction not only into significant savings for themselves, but into a community development opportunity for the neighborhood.
And they get to keep their home a little more warm and toasty in the winter.
Win-win-win.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Friday Five: March 22, 2013
In an environment where anything can be "commercialized", and where all decisions must meet "economic factors", it is worth remembering not only that markets and economics are human-made notions, but that they are often manipulated by people for their individual benefit and not that of the citizenry of a country - or even of the world.
Monsanto sneaks into budget bill, faces farmer in supreme court
"In an unprecedented move, this makes GMO companies exempt from our judicial court system. Even if a court orders Monsanto to stop planting seeds until an environmental review is carried out, this bill overrules that. The USDA would be required to give Monsanto a temporary permit to keep selling, cultivating and planting those seeds while the review is conducted. So, even the federal courts wouldn't be able to stop Monsanto (or other GMO firms) from planting unproven, potentially dangerous crops if this bill passes."
Meanwhile, we incentivize corporate farming, a practice that does not seek to maintain the long-term value of the land, but the best - and most immediate - return on investment.
This graph on how we pay farmers should make you sick
"(page 261 of the report that the post links to) Today's agricultural commodity support programs are rooted in the landmark New Deal legislation that followed the agricultural depression of the 1920s and 1930s. These programs were designed to sustain prices and incomes for producers of cotton, milk, wheat, rice, corn, sugar, tobacco, peanuts, and other crops, at a time when a large portion of the U.S. population was engaged in farming. Today, less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is engaged in farming, and changing economic conditions and trends in agriculture since these programs began suggest that many of the original motivations for these farm programs no longer apply."
This corporatization of farming - subsidized by the government - has put us in a position where anything that we can do with surplus grown matter creates a profit opportunity....even when that opportunity makes no sense economically, scientifically, or ecologically. For years, we have known that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it delivers, but because we needed somewhere for the excess crop production to go, no one questioned the value.
Days of promise fade for ethanol
"Nearly 10 percent of the nation’s ethanol plants have stopped production over the past year, in part because the drought that has ravaged much of the nation’s crops pushed commodity prices so high that ethanol has become too expensive to produce.
A dip in gasoline consumption has compounded the industry’s problem by reducing the demand for ethanol."
Instead of picking winners and losers through corporate subsidy, we should be focusing on more and more "performance metrics" that we want our marketplace to meet. Those that can meet them at the lowest price point will "win" and those that cannot will "lose"....but at least innovation and the best ideas will have a shot. Time and again, when faced with a "must improve" mandate, we always meet or exceed the target - and at much lower cost than predicted. In the case of new fuel-efficiency standards, we are currently set to meet them by 2025. My prediction is that we will meet them by 2020, if not sooner, and likely exceed them.
Cars in the U.S. are more fuel-efficient than ever. Here’s why.
"...a new report from the Environmental Protection Agency offers the most detailed breakdown yet of this trend. The EPA is a particularly helpful source on fuel-economy because the agency tests how cars and trucks actually perform in the real world — rather than simply looking at what the laws say."
I could not let the election of a new pope go by without a link to what it might mean for the Catholic Church's stance on the environment. He does not speak for all Catholics, and certainly not for all people of all faiths, but it is hard to argue with his statement - regardless of your religious affiliation.
Pope calls for church austerity, wants to focus on poor
"On climate change, the Pope remarked, 'Right now, we don't have a very good relation with creation.'"
Happy Friday!
Monsanto sneaks into budget bill, faces farmer in supreme court
"In an unprecedented move, this makes GMO companies exempt from our judicial court system. Even if a court orders Monsanto to stop planting seeds until an environmental review is carried out, this bill overrules that. The USDA would be required to give Monsanto a temporary permit to keep selling, cultivating and planting those seeds while the review is conducted. So, even the federal courts wouldn't be able to stop Monsanto (or other GMO firms) from planting unproven, potentially dangerous crops if this bill passes."
Meanwhile, we incentivize corporate farming, a practice that does not seek to maintain the long-term value of the land, but the best - and most immediate - return on investment.
This graph on how we pay farmers should make you sick
"(page 261 of the report that the post links to) Today's agricultural commodity support programs are rooted in the landmark New Deal legislation that followed the agricultural depression of the 1920s and 1930s. These programs were designed to sustain prices and incomes for producers of cotton, milk, wheat, rice, corn, sugar, tobacco, peanuts, and other crops, at a time when a large portion of the U.S. population was engaged in farming. Today, less than 2 percent of the U.S. population is engaged in farming, and changing economic conditions and trends in agriculture since these programs began suggest that many of the original motivations for these farm programs no longer apply."
This corporatization of farming - subsidized by the government - has put us in a position where anything that we can do with surplus grown matter creates a profit opportunity....even when that opportunity makes no sense economically, scientifically, or ecologically. For years, we have known that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it delivers, but because we needed somewhere for the excess crop production to go, no one questioned the value.
Days of promise fade for ethanol
"Nearly 10 percent of the nation’s ethanol plants have stopped production over the past year, in part because the drought that has ravaged much of the nation’s crops pushed commodity prices so high that ethanol has become too expensive to produce.
A dip in gasoline consumption has compounded the industry’s problem by reducing the demand for ethanol."
Instead of picking winners and losers through corporate subsidy, we should be focusing on more and more "performance metrics" that we want our marketplace to meet. Those that can meet them at the lowest price point will "win" and those that cannot will "lose"....but at least innovation and the best ideas will have a shot. Time and again, when faced with a "must improve" mandate, we always meet or exceed the target - and at much lower cost than predicted. In the case of new fuel-efficiency standards, we are currently set to meet them by 2025. My prediction is that we will meet them by 2020, if not sooner, and likely exceed them.
Cars in the U.S. are more fuel-efficient than ever. Here’s why.
"...a new report from the Environmental Protection Agency offers the most detailed breakdown yet of this trend. The EPA is a particularly helpful source on fuel-economy because the agency tests how cars and trucks actually perform in the real world — rather than simply looking at what the laws say."
I could not let the election of a new pope go by without a link to what it might mean for the Catholic Church's stance on the environment. He does not speak for all Catholics, and certainly not for all people of all faiths, but it is hard to argue with his statement - regardless of your religious affiliation.
Pope calls for church austerity, wants to focus on poor
"On climate change, the Pope remarked, 'Right now, we don't have a very good relation with creation.'"
Happy Friday!
Friday, March 15, 2013
Friday Five: March 15, 2013
This week we say stories of several communities that have started to take control of their own destiny relative to energy decisions. First, in California - where granted it might be a bit easier - one community decides that it will become a solar town.
Renewable rules: Lancaster, Calif., requires all new homes to have solar power
"Most notably, in 2010 Lancaster partnered with SolarCity to launch a successful solar financing program for homeowners, nonprofits and businesses called Solar Lancaster. According to Greentech Media, the 1.45-megawatt program — it extends not only to private homes and businesses but also to city hall, the Lancaster Performing Arts Center, Clear Channel Stadium, churches, schools and more — will generate $1.5 million annually through 2017 and then $800,000 per year for the next 20 years."
On the other end of the spectrum, one town in Minnesota is trying to keep its citizens from having to live with the waste products of an environmentally damaging extraction process for fossil fuels.
Mining hub town of St. Charles says no to major frac sand facility
"The project promised 50 new jobs, but citizens feared the loss of tourism, depletion of groundwater used to wash the sand, pollution of groundwater from frac sand waste, lung disease from airborne crystalline silica dust and unsafe truck traffic."
In developing communities around the world, these similar questions will be raised, and it is up to all of us - both in the developed and developing world - to come to an understanding on how we can achieve the goal of increasing quality of life for some without decreasing quality of life for others.
Can the world fight climate change and energy poverty at the same time?
"That said, other experts are skeptical that tackling climate change and energy poverty at once is as easy as it sounds. Roger Pielke Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, has pointed out that the international community’s definition of 'modern energy access' tends to be pitiful — it means providing people with a mere 2.2 percent of the energy that the average American uses."
Some are taking a creative approach to visualizing and dealing with this issue.
What if the entire world lived in one city?
"This is the premise behind an ambitious research project, called 'The City of 7 Billion,' for which the two recently won the $100,000 Latrobe Prize from the American Institute of Architects College of Fellows. With the geo-spatial model Mendis and Hsiang are creating – think a super-enhanced, zoomable Google Earth, Hsiang says – they’re hoping to study the impact of population growth and resource consumption at the scale of the whole world."
Meanwhile, across the pond, London is taking a new approach to transportation infrastructure that seeks to keep people mobile, while improving air quality. Hopefully, it will inspire communities across the world to shift from vehicle-centered transportation development to people-centered transportation development.
London unveils $1.51 billion bicycle master plan with 15-mile bike highway
"London is about to get a Holland-style bike-ability makeover, as Mayor Boris Johnson just announced a $1.51 billion master plan to improve the city’s bicycle network. The safer bicycle network is designed to relieve pressure on inner-London’s roads and public transportation systems. The plan also includes an ambitious 'Crossrail for Bike' – a 15-mile bicycle highway segregated from road traffic that will connect the suburbs of East and West London."
Happy Friday!
Renewable rules: Lancaster, Calif., requires all new homes to have solar power
"Most notably, in 2010 Lancaster partnered with SolarCity to launch a successful solar financing program for homeowners, nonprofits and businesses called Solar Lancaster. According to Greentech Media, the 1.45-megawatt program — it extends not only to private homes and businesses but also to city hall, the Lancaster Performing Arts Center, Clear Channel Stadium, churches, schools and more — will generate $1.5 million annually through 2017 and then $800,000 per year for the next 20 years."
On the other end of the spectrum, one town in Minnesota is trying to keep its citizens from having to live with the waste products of an environmentally damaging extraction process for fossil fuels.
Mining hub town of St. Charles says no to major frac sand facility
"The project promised 50 new jobs, but citizens feared the loss of tourism, depletion of groundwater used to wash the sand, pollution of groundwater from frac sand waste, lung disease from airborne crystalline silica dust and unsafe truck traffic."
In developing communities around the world, these similar questions will be raised, and it is up to all of us - both in the developed and developing world - to come to an understanding on how we can achieve the goal of increasing quality of life for some without decreasing quality of life for others.
Can the world fight climate change and energy poverty at the same time?
"That said, other experts are skeptical that tackling climate change and energy poverty at once is as easy as it sounds. Roger Pielke Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, has pointed out that the international community’s definition of 'modern energy access' tends to be pitiful — it means providing people with a mere 2.2 percent of the energy that the average American uses."
Some are taking a creative approach to visualizing and dealing with this issue.
What if the entire world lived in one city?
"This is the premise behind an ambitious research project, called 'The City of 7 Billion,' for which the two recently won the $100,000 Latrobe Prize from the American Institute of Architects College of Fellows. With the geo-spatial model Mendis and Hsiang are creating – think a super-enhanced, zoomable Google Earth, Hsiang says – they’re hoping to study the impact of population growth and resource consumption at the scale of the whole world."
Meanwhile, across the pond, London is taking a new approach to transportation infrastructure that seeks to keep people mobile, while improving air quality. Hopefully, it will inspire communities across the world to shift from vehicle-centered transportation development to people-centered transportation development.
London unveils $1.51 billion bicycle master plan with 15-mile bike highway
"London is about to get a Holland-style bike-ability makeover, as Mayor Boris Johnson just announced a $1.51 billion master plan to improve the city’s bicycle network. The safer bicycle network is designed to relieve pressure on inner-London’s roads and public transportation systems. The plan also includes an ambitious 'Crossrail for Bike' – a 15-mile bicycle highway segregated from road traffic that will connect the suburbs of East and West London."
Happy Friday!
Friday, March 8, 2013
Friday Five: March 1, 2013
After a relatively slow year for environmental reporting, this week saw a significant uptick in stories about environmental and community stewardship issues. Perhaps the most interesting stories are the ones that remain to be written involving the new "energy and environment" team appointed by President Obama this week. The Administrator of the EPA and Secretary of Energy will shape the details of the President's second term commitment to addressing the impacts of climate change.
Cabinet picks could take on climate change
"Mr. Obama nominated Gina McCarthy, a tough-talking native of Boston and an experienced clean air regulator, to take charge at the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ernest J. Moniz, a physicist and strong advocate of natural gas and nuclear power as cleaner alternatives to coal, to run the Department of Energy."
The moves, particularly the appointment of Moniz for Energy, signal a disconcerting focus on "bridging fuels" - namely natural gas and nuclear - to get us from a present of carbon-intensive energy to a future of largely renewable sources. Unless major technological advances find market adoption in the immediate future, switching to natural gas will not have the major climate improvement that most would like us to believe. McCarthy does seem to have good insights into the dangers of methane leaks in natural gas mining, and perhaps some hope this week came to light that will hopefully reduce the methane leaks that make natural gas mining almost as destructive as coal combustion.
Can this contraption make fracking greener?
"Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, even more so than CO2 over the short-term. And natural gas production creates a lot of it: The EPA predicts that methane from the natural gas industry will be one of the top sources of non-CO2 emissions in coming decades. A 2011 federal study [PDF] found that taken all around, the total greenhouse footprint for shale gas could be up to twice that of coal over a 20-year period."
We also do not seem to be capable of learning the lessons of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukishima. I bring this up not entirely as a "stop nuclear now because it cannot be done safely in perpetuity" argument, but as a "after seeing failure occur, why can't we just fix the issues we already know we have" argument. Although I personally believe the former argument - in the absence of new technologies that neutralize the potential injury nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns can cause - but accept that it might not have mainstream adoption. That said, there is nothing unreasonable about the later argument. It is disconcerting that our nations avoidance of maintaining infrastructure extends to safety at our nuclear facilities.
The NRC and nuclear power plant safety
"Analysis of the near-miss data for the three years covered by UCS reports shows that 40 of the nation's 104 operating commercial reactors experienced a near miss between 2010 and 2012, with 12 reactors experiencing at least two near-miss events, and three—at Fort Calhoun, Palisades, and Wolf Creek—experiencing three or more. The three-year data indicate that the average U.S. reactor is likely to experience seven near misses over its 40-year license period (increasing to about ten if the license is extended by 20 years, as most have been)."
It will be interesting to see whether the signal sent by the New York Times this week indicates a shift away from a specialized focus on environmental reporting to a more robust reporting on the impacts environmental issues have on national, metro, and political issues, or whether it means that in an era of limited resources, media focus on environmental issues has too limited an appeal to justify the expense.
For Times environmental reporting, intentions may be good but the signs are not
"Mr. Baquet said the move was done, in part, for cost-cutting reasons, as The Times eliminated 30 management positions, but more for coverage reasons.
'I think our environmental coverage has suffered from the segregation — it needs to be more integrated into all of the different areas,' like science, politics and foreign news, he said.
He agreed that environmental coverage is of great importance, and said that having The Times’s environmental reporters working on other desks is the best way to 'drive more of these important stories onto the home page and the front page.'"
With the Chicago Blackhawks off to one of the best starts in NHL history, the only hockey sticks I want to be thinking about are the ones that are scoring goals for the men in the Blackhawks sweater. Unfortunately, every time we learn something new about the changing temperatures and climate that arise from our actions, we learn only that it is more drastic and more impactive than we had predicted.
Study: In just a century, globe shifted from one of the coldest decades in 11,000 years to warmest
"Marcott’s data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don’t show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies."
Editor's prerogative: Post Script
Since national priorities dominated this week's news, it was tough not to include about fifteen stories, but one that caught my eye that I just had to share because of how it exemplifies the potential to have simple solutions that solve multiple problems. One device that promotes activity, reading, environmental protection, and increased quality of life. It's a timely find for me, as my daughter starts her soccer season this week.
Soccer ball generates energy while you play
"This is a real soccer ball. You can head it, kick it, knee it, slap it out of a goal with your fist, or, if you are Diego Maradona, knock it into one. A soccer ball does not need another reason to be a wonderful thing, but this particular soccer ball provides one: Kick it around for 30 minutes and it powers an LED bulb for three hours."
Happy Friday!
Cabinet picks could take on climate change
"Mr. Obama nominated Gina McCarthy, a tough-talking native of Boston and an experienced clean air regulator, to take charge at the Environmental Protection Agency, and Ernest J. Moniz, a physicist and strong advocate of natural gas and nuclear power as cleaner alternatives to coal, to run the Department of Energy."
The moves, particularly the appointment of Moniz for Energy, signal a disconcerting focus on "bridging fuels" - namely natural gas and nuclear - to get us from a present of carbon-intensive energy to a future of largely renewable sources. Unless major technological advances find market adoption in the immediate future, switching to natural gas will not have the major climate improvement that most would like us to believe. McCarthy does seem to have good insights into the dangers of methane leaks in natural gas mining, and perhaps some hope this week came to light that will hopefully reduce the methane leaks that make natural gas mining almost as destructive as coal combustion.
Can this contraption make fracking greener?
"Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, even more so than CO2 over the short-term. And natural gas production creates a lot of it: The EPA predicts that methane from the natural gas industry will be one of the top sources of non-CO2 emissions in coming decades. A 2011 federal study [PDF] found that taken all around, the total greenhouse footprint for shale gas could be up to twice that of coal over a 20-year period."
We also do not seem to be capable of learning the lessons of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukishima. I bring this up not entirely as a "stop nuclear now because it cannot be done safely in perpetuity" argument, but as a "after seeing failure occur, why can't we just fix the issues we already know we have" argument. Although I personally believe the former argument - in the absence of new technologies that neutralize the potential injury nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns can cause - but accept that it might not have mainstream adoption. That said, there is nothing unreasonable about the later argument. It is disconcerting that our nations avoidance of maintaining infrastructure extends to safety at our nuclear facilities.
The NRC and nuclear power plant safety
"Analysis of the near-miss data for the three years covered by UCS reports shows that 40 of the nation's 104 operating commercial reactors experienced a near miss between 2010 and 2012, with 12 reactors experiencing at least two near-miss events, and three—at Fort Calhoun, Palisades, and Wolf Creek—experiencing three or more. The three-year data indicate that the average U.S. reactor is likely to experience seven near misses over its 40-year license period (increasing to about ten if the license is extended by 20 years, as most have been)."
It will be interesting to see whether the signal sent by the New York Times this week indicates a shift away from a specialized focus on environmental reporting to a more robust reporting on the impacts environmental issues have on national, metro, and political issues, or whether it means that in an era of limited resources, media focus on environmental issues has too limited an appeal to justify the expense.
For Times environmental reporting, intentions may be good but the signs are not
"Mr. Baquet said the move was done, in part, for cost-cutting reasons, as The Times eliminated 30 management positions, but more for coverage reasons.
'I think our environmental coverage has suffered from the segregation — it needs to be more integrated into all of the different areas,' like science, politics and foreign news, he said.
He agreed that environmental coverage is of great importance, and said that having The Times’s environmental reporters working on other desks is the best way to 'drive more of these important stories onto the home page and the front page.'"
With the Chicago Blackhawks off to one of the best starts in NHL history, the only hockey sticks I want to be thinking about are the ones that are scoring goals for the men in the Blackhawks sweater. Unfortunately, every time we learn something new about the changing temperatures and climate that arise from our actions, we learn only that it is more drastic and more impactive than we had predicted.
Study: In just a century, globe shifted from one of the coldest decades in 11,000 years to warmest
"Marcott’s data indicates that it took 4,000 years for the world to warm about 1.25 degrees from the end of the ice age to about 7,000 years ago. The same fossil-based data suggest a similar level of warming occurring in just one generation: from the 1920s to the 1940s. Actual thermometer records don’t show the rise from the 1920s to the 1940s was quite that big and Marcott said for such recent time periods it is better to use actual thermometer readings than his proxies."
Editor's prerogative: Post Script
Since national priorities dominated this week's news, it was tough not to include about fifteen stories, but one that caught my eye that I just had to share because of how it exemplifies the potential to have simple solutions that solve multiple problems. One device that promotes activity, reading, environmental protection, and increased quality of life. It's a timely find for me, as my daughter starts her soccer season this week.
Soccer ball generates energy while you play
"This is a real soccer ball. You can head it, kick it, knee it, slap it out of a goal with your fist, or, if you are Diego Maradona, knock it into one. A soccer ball does not need another reason to be a wonderful thing, but this particular soccer ball provides one: Kick it around for 30 minutes and it powers an LED bulb for three hours."
Happy Friday!
Friday, March 1, 2013
Friday Five: March 1, 2013
It's hard enough to battle against the proliferation of infrastructure, financial systems, and other intrinsic advantages that fossil fuels have, but when those who claim to want to make big strides for the environment sell out for a paycheck, the challenge for those who do not becomes that much greater.
Seattle green consultants sell out for coal money, whine
"Yeah? Well I for one am sick of treating it like a game. It’s not a game. And in this particular case, it’s not complicated. It’s working on behalf of evil and it’s a shitty thing to do, professionally and morally."
Especially when our own government subsidizes the industry, while some within our Congress look to gut environmental laws further and create even larger obstacles to change. I find it intolerable that we have to endure a hypocrisy that a government is too large to continue to provide health care to the aging in our country, but not too large to continue to subsidize an industry that already enjoys large profits.
Oil for nothing...gas for free
"As oil and gas companies rake in record profits, they continue to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. These subsidies include not only preferential tax credits and deductions, which congressional Republicans repeatedly voted to preserve in the last Congress, but also less scrutinized royalty breaks that are every bit as costly."
Thankfully, we continue to have examples from even the most conservative of organizations that a renewable future is the only future in which we will survive.
Inside the military's green-energy revolution
"But not without a fight. Six weeks before RIMPAC 2012, Republicans and some coal- and gas-state Democrats tried to scuttle Mabus' Green Fleet by barring the Pentagon from buying alternative fuels that cost more per gallon than petroleum-based fuels--the biofuel blend cost more than $15 a gallon--unless the more expensive alternative fuels come from other fossil fuels, like liquefied coal. Thistricky logic made sense to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)--'[The Pentagon] should not be wasting time perpetrating President Obama's global warming fantasies or his ongoing war on affordable energy'--even though seven years earlier Inhofe helped secure a $10 million taxpayer fund to test renewable military fuels, more than half of which went to a company in his home state. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed, calling the purchase of biofuels "a terrible misplacement of priorities" and adding, 'I don't believe it's the job of the Navy to be involved in building...new technologies.' Mabus, who'd already bought the biofuels for the RIMPAC demo, fired back: 'If we didn't pay a little bit more for new technologies, the Navy would never have bought a nuclear submarine, which still costs four to five times more than a conventional submarine.'"
We have a genuine and well-earned respect for those who have sacrificed their lives, their careers, and their time with family to fight for our country. I wholeheartedly support the idea of a Public Lands Service Corps (and would welcome an extension to an Urban Lands Service Corps), and would expect that people have the same respect for those who would sacrifice their time, careers, and earning potential to protect the environment without which we cannot live.
Senators launch effort to employ youth restoring public lands
"The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013 improves on the existing Public Lands Corps by expanding the scope of projects to reflect new challenges. It would also add incentives to attract new participants, including Native Americans and veterans, that suffer from disproportionately high rates of unemployment."
Looking to others for examples of how we can improve is not the same as saying our way of life, or our country, is any less valuable or good. The American spirit has always been open to looking at ideas from across the globe, welcoming those ideas - and specifically the people who thought of them - to a land where anyone can pursue that idea to its best value for man and womankind. I know there is a sense of privilege bias and elitism associated with saying that one has traveled out of the country, but I have been lucky enough to go to Paris. I can say from first hand experience that the layout of the city and the commerce present there that supports walkability make it an amazing place to visit. I will also say that the Canaryville area (neighborhood on Chicago's south side) where I grew up had some of the sense of commerce, walkability, and community. "Density" is not piling people on top of each other, but putting the right number of people in the best proximity to maintain quality of life. We can learn a lot about how to make this happen....and it would not hurt to look at the way some places have made this work for over a century.
Replicating Paris density and streetscape
"Can we then presume that planning new communities with a 'Parisian density' is achievable and desirable? Can you imagine walking down a street in Chicago, shopping in a farmers market for fresh, local produce, buying a newspaper at a small kiosk and then stopping at your local café? Continuing on to visit a myriad of small business owners whom you know on a first name basis? They provide useful goods and services not available at the big box stores. There could be shops that include shoe repairs, seamstress, specialty goods, a baker, a fresh meat butcher, stationery and office supplies. Yes we would like to have that kind of neighborhood in Chicago or other American cities. It would take serious planning efforts for new urban design that support the values of walkability and sustainable small businesses. And we should support those plans wherever possible. It’s cheaper than air fare."
Happy Friday!
Seattle green consultants sell out for coal money, whine
"Yeah? Well I for one am sick of treating it like a game. It’s not a game. And in this particular case, it’s not complicated. It’s working on behalf of evil and it’s a shitty thing to do, professionally and morally."
Especially when our own government subsidizes the industry, while some within our Congress look to gut environmental laws further and create even larger obstacles to change. I find it intolerable that we have to endure a hypocrisy that a government is too large to continue to provide health care to the aging in our country, but not too large to continue to subsidize an industry that already enjoys large profits.
Oil for nothing...gas for free
"As oil and gas companies rake in record profits, they continue to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. These subsidies include not only preferential tax credits and deductions, which congressional Republicans repeatedly voted to preserve in the last Congress, but also less scrutinized royalty breaks that are every bit as costly."
Thankfully, we continue to have examples from even the most conservative of organizations that a renewable future is the only future in which we will survive.
Inside the military's green-energy revolution
"But not without a fight. Six weeks before RIMPAC 2012, Republicans and some coal- and gas-state Democrats tried to scuttle Mabus' Green Fleet by barring the Pentagon from buying alternative fuels that cost more per gallon than petroleum-based fuels--the biofuel blend cost more than $15 a gallon--unless the more expensive alternative fuels come from other fossil fuels, like liquefied coal. Thistricky logic made sense to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)--'[The Pentagon] should not be wasting time perpetrating President Obama's global warming fantasies or his ongoing war on affordable energy'--even though seven years earlier Inhofe helped secure a $10 million taxpayer fund to test renewable military fuels, more than half of which went to a company in his home state. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) agreed, calling the purchase of biofuels "a terrible misplacement of priorities" and adding, 'I don't believe it's the job of the Navy to be involved in building...new technologies.' Mabus, who'd already bought the biofuels for the RIMPAC demo, fired back: 'If we didn't pay a little bit more for new technologies, the Navy would never have bought a nuclear submarine, which still costs four to five times more than a conventional submarine.'"
We have a genuine and well-earned respect for those who have sacrificed their lives, their careers, and their time with family to fight for our country. I wholeheartedly support the idea of a Public Lands Service Corps (and would welcome an extension to an Urban Lands Service Corps), and would expect that people have the same respect for those who would sacrifice their time, careers, and earning potential to protect the environment without which we cannot live.
Senators launch effort to employ youth restoring public lands
"The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013 improves on the existing Public Lands Corps by expanding the scope of projects to reflect new challenges. It would also add incentives to attract new participants, including Native Americans and veterans, that suffer from disproportionately high rates of unemployment."
Looking to others for examples of how we can improve is not the same as saying our way of life, or our country, is any less valuable or good. The American spirit has always been open to looking at ideas from across the globe, welcoming those ideas - and specifically the people who thought of them - to a land where anyone can pursue that idea to its best value for man and womankind. I know there is a sense of privilege bias and elitism associated with saying that one has traveled out of the country, but I have been lucky enough to go to Paris. I can say from first hand experience that the layout of the city and the commerce present there that supports walkability make it an amazing place to visit. I will also say that the Canaryville area (neighborhood on Chicago's south side) where I grew up had some of the sense of commerce, walkability, and community. "Density" is not piling people on top of each other, but putting the right number of people in the best proximity to maintain quality of life. We can learn a lot about how to make this happen....and it would not hurt to look at the way some places have made this work for over a century.
Replicating Paris density and streetscape
"Can we then presume that planning new communities with a 'Parisian density' is achievable and desirable? Can you imagine walking down a street in Chicago, shopping in a farmers market for fresh, local produce, buying a newspaper at a small kiosk and then stopping at your local café? Continuing on to visit a myriad of small business owners whom you know on a first name basis? They provide useful goods and services not available at the big box stores. There could be shops that include shoe repairs, seamstress, specialty goods, a baker, a fresh meat butcher, stationery and office supplies. Yes we would like to have that kind of neighborhood in Chicago or other American cities. It would take serious planning efforts for new urban design that support the values of walkability and sustainable small businesses. And we should support those plans wherever possible. It’s cheaper than air fare."
Happy Friday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)