Friday Five: May 31, 2013

Even though the impact of fracking is still not understood, Illinois has taken a step forward to regulating fracking and institutionalizing it in the state.  Many of the Illinois environmental groups still hope for a moratorium, but have taken a practical approach to working with lawmakers and industry to craft a bill that provides for disclosure of chemicals and greater protection than other states.  
Illinois House passes fracking bill
"Under the legislation companies who wish to 'frack' for oil and gas in Illinois will be subjected to some of the toughest disclosure laws in the country.
The state is preparing itself for a potential oil boom. Proponents say fracking will bring jobs, tax dollars and investment to parts of the state that desperately need them and that the drilling can be done safely."

In an interesting contrast of approach to environmental impact, several European countries have taken a more cautionary approach to fracking.  Those knowledgable in the field recognize the relationship among food, energy, and water.  Fracking not only uses significant amounts of water (keeping that water from use for agriculture permanently - based upon current practice), but has impacts on the existing water sources once fossil fuels reserves are disturbed.  This poses risks to crops and industries centered around those crops.  What cost will the state bear if fracking negatively impacts the quality of corn and soybeans produced by the farmers in Illinois?  Do we want to wait to find out?
German brewers say fracking will mess up the country's beer
"Brewing the world's best hefeweizen, you see, requires great drinking water -- and fracking, they said, 'could reduce or even completely eliminate the security of the water supply.' In a letter, the organization argued that this newfangled way of extracting energy would conflict with Europe's oldest food purity law, the Reinheitsgebot of 1516, which stated, 'We wish to emphasize that in future in all cities, markets and in the country, the only ingredients used for the brewing of beer must be barley, hops and water.'"

On the other side of the fracking issue, the seismic change in energy markets created by historically inexpensive natural gas has further jeopardized the future of coal.  On one side, marginalizing coal has environmental benefits, however, on the other side, extending the viability of fossil fuels and introducing technology that does not yet have enough history to understand the long-range impact has equal risks. 
Plans shelved for coal export terminal in Oregon
"That means three of the original six proposed coal export terminals that have locked Oregon and Washington in controversy are now either shelved or off the table. Developers still are exploring or seeking permits for terminals in Boardman, Ore., Longview, Wash., and at Cherry Point near Bellingham, Wash.
Thousands of residents have signed petitions and turned out for hearings to block the plans, which would involve shipping coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana on long trains to the coast."

Many understand that an aggressive and significant change in fuel supply to local, renewable sources not only eliminates the negative impacts of "dirty fuels", but also increases the local economic engines of growth.  Not every state/city/county has access to stores of fossil fuels, but every locale has access to sun, wind, rain, and earth.  Using these sources makes our communities more resilient, and stabilizes our economies.
Maine and New Hampshire small businesses support clean energy standards...
"Scientific opinion polling shows small business owners in Maine and New Hampshire believe government can play an important role in creating financial incentives that help small businesses take energy efficiency measures. ...What’s more, small business owners support EPA action to limit carbon emissions that cause climate change and set standards for existing power plants, refineries and other major emitters."

Those older than a certain age will recognize the Soylent Green-ish nature of this technology, but we cannot miss the opportunity (assuming we use acceptable sources) to feed the world at low cost and with good nutrition.  I expect that a version similar to this will allow us to recycle leftover material (I refuse to call it trash or waste) into food or materials we need in our daily life.  This can change the nature of manufacturing in this country, and restore more stability to our cities and towns.
The audacious plan to end hunger with 3-D printed food
He sees a day when every kitchen has a 3D printer, and the earth’s 12 billion people feed themselves customized, nutritionally-appropriate meals synthesized one layer at a time, from cartridges of powder and oils they buy at the corner grocery store. Contractor’s vision would mean the end of food waste, because the powder his system will use is shelf-stable for up to 30 years, so that each cartridge, whether it contains sugars, complex carbohydrates, protein or some other basic building block, would be fully exhausted before being returned to the store.

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: May 24, 2013

Natural disasters awake feelings of confusion and uselessness as we look for answers that sometimes will never come. As a person who knows that human activity under our current mode of energy utilization has caused - and will continue to cause - changes in our climate, I recognize that not every major storm event results from climate change. I chose the article below among others on the topic because it uses the right scientific language - finding no confirmed link, and because one of the comments on the article notes that the analysis of the article focuses on the ferocity while those who look at climate over weather would also focus on frequency.
Evidence to Date Does Not Show Clear Link Between Tornadoes and Climate Change
"The short answer is that scientists don’t see a clear link between climate change and the number or intensity of tornadoes over the past several decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on extreme events expressed 'low confidence,' mainly due to inadequacies in monitoring systems."

Amidst the popular punditry on the changing position of the modern Republican party (which those who know me know I do not equate with the GOP of Roosevelt) with regard to immigration, a more subtle and subversive wave of environmental conservatives seeks to look at energy issues with economic and public health common sense. For those who believe in centrist policies based on maximizing public good for the largest section of the population, this provides hope that some common sense will come to the discussion of our relationship with non-renewable, damaging sources of energy.
The (slow, tentative) greening of the GOP
"It's true: The same party that had just spent the previous year eviscerating Obama on the campaign trail for his green-energy agenda and the bankruptcy of Solyndra was now signaling that it was ready to go quietly, carefully greener. That message will be amplified this summer, when a squadron of House Republicans calling itself the House Energy Action Team -- yes, HEAT -- will hit town halls and TVs with a new set of energy talking points that, while still embracing oil and gas drilling, also say good things about energy efficiency and renewables."

This week showed signs of both the frustration and the hopefulness of this potentially bipartisan move forward. First the frustration: modern Republicans politicize the nomination of an administrator with large bipartisan support on the basis that she agree to transparency in an agency that the same Republican party treated with the opposite of transparency a decade ago. I do not admonish the call for transparency...I do admonish the holding up of a nomination over it. That hypocrisy lessens the case.
Observers optimistic McCarthy nomination will advance on floor
"McCarthy, who served under Republican governors as a state official in Massachusetts and Connecticut, has been praised by industry officials for being fair and open in policy discussions and has been widely backed by the left. That broad support, Willcox said, should help her advance.
And former EPA Administrator William Reilly said in an interview that he didn't anticipate more Republican boycotting, especially based on Vitter's comments.
'You don't really hold up a presidential nominee, especially at a Cabinet-level position, unless there is an issue of basic confidence or character,' said Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992. 'In this case, there has been no implication that McCarthy lacks confidence, and there's been nothing said about her character. So it comes down to policy ... and I don't think we've had that debate.'"

On the hopeful side, a bipartisan bill that seeks to further reform energy policy in this country - the little that exists - has great promise to deliver improvements to quality of life. This cautious optimism comes amid an atmosphere where the rules of legislative "sausage making" allow anyone with an agenda to threaten governance by common sense.
Energy reform threatened by two "poison pills"
"A sweeping energy-efficiency bill soon to be on the U.S. Senate floor would help boost energy codes, finance retrofits, and support training programs for building tradespeople and professionals. But rumors of “poison pill” amendments are souring the process for green building advocates and could jeopardize the progress of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 761, cosponsored by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio)."

Closer to home, for me, legislators in Illinois consider how to allow fracking in the state. Some common sense has accompanied the regulatory effort, even though many like me see the expansion of fracking into Illinois as a confirmation that we will never escape an economy based on fossil fuels and therefore seal our fate with the consequences. Amid the extreme calls for banning and permitting with little regulation, the idea of a moratorium to produce a picture of the impact of fracking in Illinois has greatest merit. It does not have to be a year or two; even a six month moratorium on issuing permits would allow early stage exploration by energy companies to determine market potential, and would give environmental organizations - many of whom support fracking with practical oversight - the chance to identify the potential impact on the quality of life of all the citizens of Illinois.
Illinois House committee oks fracking regulatory bill
"Jen Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, representing a number of environmental groups, said Bradley's bill was necessary to regulate fracking before the drilling process became widely used in Illinois.
'This new, controversial technology is already permitted and may already be in use,' she said. 'We believe that operators are seeking permits for fracking in Illinois today and that it is essential for the Legislature to pass tough restrictions before the end of session to protect our communities.'"

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: May 3, 2013 (the oops I forgot to post edition)

As a follow-up to a previous story on methane hydrates and the potential impact on environmental protection, perhaps we are on the verge of an energy revolution that will so dramatically change the economy that the market for carbon-based fuel will never again make financial sense...one can only hope that we get our priorities straight.
Think methane hydrates are the next big thing? Think again
"At the same time, we have numerous forecasts projecting that renewables like wind and solar will be competitive with fossil-fueled grid power in most of the developed world by 2020, including much of Asia. For example, a recent report by Citigroup, and another by researchers at Stanford University, among many others. A 2011 report by WWF and Ecofys projects that by 2018, solar PV will be the cheapest way to generate power in much of Asia. If these forecasts — based on more than a decade of real-world cost data for large-scale solar and wind — are correct, then there is no reason to believe that gas from Japan’s methane hydrate experiment will be able to compete with renewable grid power, which would constitute the largest market for that gas (unless Japan rapidly deploys natural gas vehicles in the interim, which it currently has no economic reason to do)."

A major component of making this economic shift is to make the current energy market completely transparent and assign all the costs of carbon-based fuels directly to the energy cost. We pay for all of these costs - e.g. increased healthcare, environmental remediation, decreased property values - but we never see that when we buy the energy. When companies blatantly try to keep information on their business practices that cause harm to human health and local ecosystems, we must push back and get the information we need to make the best decision for our families and our communities.
Exxon conceals results of 2013 Pegasus pipeline inspection
"Arkansans deserve answers from ExxonMobil. Families have been out of their homes for more than a month. Mayflower's land and waterways are fouled, children and others have become sick from exposure, and hundreds of animals and birds have been killed or sickened after coming in contact with the spilled crude. Our health, safety, and environment are at risk in Mayflower and beyond."

At the same time, we must hold our local and state officials' feet to the fire and make sure that the regulations that we have put in place to protect our health and that of our family and neighbors do not go unenforced, or get weakened to the point of being irrelevant. To live in a state where lawmakers have violated the contract with labor for decades, and now wants labor to accept a change in that contract is embarrassing enough, but when the state allows companies that blatantly ignore the health protections of the citizens of the state, that is downright sickening. A petty thief who uses pot goes to jail for 25 years after their 3rd strike, but a serial violator of environmental protections keeps getting the opportunity to make money. Our priorities are all screwed up.
Illinois ranks as worst rogue coal state: Strip mine permit to serial violator stuns residents
"With state coal production soaring against national trends, Illinois cemented its reputation as the worst rogue state for coal operations last Friday, when the rubber-stamping operations of the state's EPA issued a pollutant discharge permit to a company already cited by the state for over 600 toxic discharge violations at its central Illinois non-union strip mine."

When given the chance, the voice, and the power, people whose lives are directly impacted by the dangers of pollution-based fuels will make the determination as to whether the benefit outweighs the costs. Those of us who live in lives of comfort thanks to the sacrifices of those who mine, drill, transport, etc., and the combined sacrifice of the families of those who work in these areas, have no place telling someone they have to accept a fracking field, coal mine, nuclear plant, etc. If more and more of these communities stand up and ask to stop the madness, then we all will have to make changes to our lifestyles. I would hope that we could all make the choice before it comes to that point, but if we do not, the choice will eventually be thrust upon us.
Cities in New York just got a big stick in the fracking fight
"For the past six weeks, a New York appellate court has been hashing this out in the case of Norse Energy Corp. v. Town of Dryden. In 2011, the little town of Dryden, N.Y., banned gas drilling and was promptly sued by a multibillion dollar energy company. A year ago, Dryden won its first battle in a New York Supreme Court ruling. Just yesterday, it won the second. Indeed, the people of Dryden didn’t beat the industry—they pummeled it. The Appellate Court just handed New York towns and cities a very heavy stick in the jurisdictional street brawl over fracking. Norse can appeal (and my sources say they are planning on it), but because this was a unanimous decision they’ll have to first get the court’s permission, and that may be challenging."

Not surprisingly, as living life efficiently has become a sign of intelligence and prestige, more of those on the high-usage end of the spectrum have made the choice to go with cutting edge ideas such as zero energy living. As the strategies become more common place, we will see them move into codes and standards, and eventually the marketplace will not have to decide IF we should have buildings that require no external energy source, but simply WHAT strategies are best to accomplish it on each property, in each city, at each time.
Green goes mainstream for new homes
"Extreme energy efficiency is moving mainstream, becoming standard practice for large home builders, such as California-based KB Home and Nexus Energy Homes, the company that built the Gurzicks' house last year.
The 'green' residential construction market has grown steadily in recent years—even throughout the recession. Green housing projects accounted for 20% of all newly built homes last year and had an overall value of $25 billion, according to industry-research firm McGraw Hill Construction. As the housing market continues to recover, the researchers predict, this share will grow to between 29% and 38% of new U.S. homes by 2016."

Happy Friday!

The Tracking of Fracking

Fracking.

Not surprisingly, given that the word sounds like a vulgarity, that one word...fracking...creates a visceral reaction among advocates for improved energy sources. Some claim hydraulic fracturing (the technical term for the practice of creating fissures in rock to release stored oil and gas) provides a once in a generation opportunity to rid the United States of coal - the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, while others skeptically wonder whether the practice causes more harm than good. Both agree that fracking has created a drastic change in the market for energy, dropping prices for natural gas - and with it electricity - and potentially pulling down oil prices as liquified natural gas becomes cost competitive. Fossil fuel energy proponents see it as a savior for an industry that just a decade ago appeared on the ropes with prices skyrocketing and public opinion falling.  A technology revolution and economic collapse later, natural gas and oil have made a comeback in the eyes of the public.  Prices are more reasonable, and with the economy still recovering, the lowering of prices has meant more value to the energy consumer.

This spring, the Illinois legislature considers a bill to allow fracking in the state, and provide regulation of that industry. Many voices have risen on both sides of the issue. My personal thought sits on the side of banning fracking. We know too little about the long-term impact of the practice, and it creates the potential for a minimum of forty to fifty more years of natural gas burning in this country. Expanding fracking operations will maintain the reliance on fossil fuels, and will stymy investment in alternative sources of energy. Most disconcerting, it will maintain a culture of fossil fuels for another generation - one that might turn back to coal if natural gas runs out or becomes cost prohibitive.

That is not politically likely, however, so instead I turn toward a focus on what makes sense in regulation.

Capitalism and market economics work best when the buyer and seller have all the information they need to make a transaction, and the price agreed to by the parties includes all of the costs of a good or service. In this way, all the parties in the transaction have responsibility for what occurs, and those choosing not to participate get neither the benefit, nor the consequences that flow from the transaction. Common sense regulation of hydraulic fracturing would establish such a market for the product, and thereby provide some measure of assurance that when Illinois citizens allow corporations to exploit our limited natural resources, they account for all the consequences of their actions. I hope that the Illinois legislature includes the following in their consideration of any legislation permitting fracking in the state:

1. Wastewater:

Unlike most commodities that we use to support life (e.g. metals, food), when we buy water, we do not buy a unique molecule for our present use that we then hold onto indefinitely (or as in the case of food, consume and transform). Water exists in a hydrologic cycle, constantly changing states as it passes through nature. The water molecule I buy today to drink is the same one that has been purchased by others over and over again. This point has importance in the fracking debate, as the industry uses a significant amount of water in the process of extracting methane from shale - approximately two to ten million gallons per well, and the process pulls water from local surface sources and aquifers, mixes it with often times undisclosed chemicals, then discards the water in such a way as to pull it from the natural water cycle. Although fracking companies purchase the water the first time they use it, they do not pay a premium for pulling the water from further use, a lost opportunity cost to the local water authorities and a factor that can lead to higher prices for water as the resource becomes more scarce.

Common sense regulation will include the net cost of this extraction to society. Companies should pay for the initial use of the water, and for any water that they do not return unchanged to the local watershed, they should establish an escrow that compensates the local community for the loss of that water each year in perpetuity. This will have a positive market impact, as it will reflect the importance of water, and provide an incentive to the company to minimize water use and maximize filtration of the water they do use. As an additional point of the regulation, any water stored as a result of fracking operations must disclose the chemical contents of that water. If a company wishes to avoid disclosing the mixture it uses to protect trade secrets, then they need to reclaim all the chemical mixture before releasing the water from the operations.

2. Methane leakage

When drilling for methane (the largest component of what we call "natural gas"), drillers have difficulty containing all of the gas released. Although they have a financial incentive to reclaim as much gas as possible, the market price does not yet support the high differential costs of reclaiming the 5-9% of the harvested gas that operations release into the atmosphere. Since methane traps atmospheric heat at a rate 25 times that of CO2, this release contributes greatly to climate change, and almost negates the benefit of burning natural gas over coal.

When permitting natural gas drilling in any form, but especially through fracking which necessarily has a smaller scale of operations, the state should require companies to establish monitoring stations both on site and at reasonable intervals away from the drilling location in order to measure and report in real time the amount of methane leakage. The company managing the fracking operations should then pay a fee (equivalent to 25 times the market rate for carbon dioxide) to the local community for local climate mitigation and health services. This additional market incentive will reflect the actual cost of the operation to the community, and will provide additional incentive to the driller to install the technologies that will reclaim more of the methane. This fee should remain in tact for twenty years after the well has been capped, or until the methane leakage rate falls below a pre-determined level.

3. Seismic activity

Much still remains to be learned about the impact of fracking on subterranean stability. Early evidence shows that initial blasting that creates the fractures in the shale have little long-term seismic impact, however the discarding of fracking fluid back into the wells potentially has caused significant increases in seismic activity in the region of the activity. This impact could last long after operations have ceased.

All fracking sites should include a network of seismic monitors with real-time communications to a central monitoring facility (either statewide or regionally) associated with one of the state universities. This provides both the regular monitoring of seismic activity, but also an indicator of where permitted fracking sites exist. In Pennsylvania, industry estimates that as many as 150,000 fracking sites exist, however the public only has record of approximately half.

The financial mechanisms to make these regulations work already exist.  The technology to provide the monitoring and reporting also already exist.  Recognizing the importance of our limited water resources, and the value of good air and water quality should not create controversy.  The evidence so far indicates that current state of the industry technology for fracking does not ensure the safety of air and water resources for the populations that surround the drilling operations.  At the same time, questions have arisen about the environmental impact of unsupervised operations.  Asking companies to take responsibility for their actions, and monitor their activities to ensure no harm befalls the local population does not ask too much.  It asks for those who seek to profit from our state to take care of our state.

That should never be too much to ask.

Friday Five: May 17, 2013

This week featured a slew of stories about the financial impacts of investing in clean energy and of continued avoidance of addressing climate change. For years, I have noted how the military - the bastion of tree-hugging - recognizes the impacts of climate change, and currently plans to adapt base locations and strategies to mitigate the impacts. Now, we see that another center of progressive thought - the insurance industry - recognizes the problem. Combined with recent acknowledgements by Exelon and ExxonMobil, we see a tide shifting in the understanding of what we have done and what we have left to do.
For insurers, no doubts on climate change
"And the industry expects the situation will get worse. 'Numerous studies assume a rise in summer drought periods in North America in the future and an increasing probability of severe cyclones relatively far north along the U.S. East Coast in the long term,' said Peter Höppe, who heads Geo Risks Research at the reinsurance giant Munich Re. 'The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.' Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming."

The risk to the private insurance market has limits because of the backstop afforded by government insurance programs. Whereas the private insurance industry spent just over $30 billion on climate-change-related insurance payouts last year, the government nearly quintupled the ten year average of payouts at nearly $100 billion dollars. All taxpayers cover that bill, not just those companies and individuals who contribute most to the pollution that causes climate change.
Climate-related disasters cost American taxpayers $96 billion last year
"Overall the insurance industry estimates that 2012 was the second costliest year in U.S. history for climate-related disasters, with over $139 billion in damages. But private insurers themselves only covered about 25% of these costs ($33 billion), leaving the federal government and its public insurance enterprises to pay for the majority of the remaining claims. As a result, the U.S. government paid more than three times as much as private insurers did for climate-related disasters in 2012."

This growing recognition of the impacts and dangers of climate change to our economy have started bipartisan discussion on potential policy solutions that would reset our priorities as a nation. If such measures become law - such as a carbon tax that sets a market rate for the burning of carbon and places the costs on those that cause the pollution - it would drastically change the value of fossil fuel reserves, sparking an economic shift from fossil fuel companies as the backbone of the Fortune 500, to one where their asset values drop dramatically. It is no wonder they have fought for so long to deny the negative impact of their business.
After bubbles in dot-coms and housing, here's the carbon bubble
"A few months ago, the concept of a carbon bubble went mainstream. Last December, the International Energy Agency lent its credibility when it noted that many of already-discovered deposits of coal, oil and gas might need to be placed off limits by future government steps to constrain carbon. Then came reports by Standard & Poor’s and this one from British bank HSBC PLC. The Carbon Tracker Initiative, in conjunction with the London School of Economics, updated their research in April."

Those with capital see the looming shift, and have increased investment in opportunities that avoid the growing risks associated with carbon-based economic decisions. It is also worth noting, that some of the most viable solutions come not in the manufacture-sell-repeat model, but in the customer-service model whereby the individual buys the service from the system, but the manufacturer holds responsibility for the creation, maintenance, and reclamation of the equipment. This provides for a stronger model that recognizes the limited capacity we have to manage everything associated with our lives in great detail.
Why Goldman Sachs just bet $500 million on Elon Musk's solar business
"SolarCity's customers tend to have top credit ratings but the company said it intends to use the Goldman fund to sign up those with less sterling scores. 'The Goldman lease financing will make affordable solar electricity available to more types of homeowners and organizations,' Jimmy Chuang, SolarCity's vice president of structured finance, said in a statement. 'We expect to be able to expand our offering to a broader customer base by lowering the credit requirements even further in future financings.'
The company said the Goldman fund will also allow it to reel in more schools, municipalities and organizations that don't carry credit ratings."

This all ironically reaches the mainstream media in a week when the leader of the Catholic Church calls out the financial industry for creating a cult of money, whereby money no longer serves to improve the quality of life for all, but rather to enrich the quality for life for some while tyrannizing others to the point where they have no real autonomy. Economic - and along with it energy - development is necessary to improve quality of life, but unchecked development or parasitic development can do far more harm than good. The opportunities afforded us by the knowledge of how to interact healthfully with our natural environment, and how to tap into renewable energy resources, can put us on a better path for development for the 5 billion people in our world looking to reach the "western" quality of life. I hope that over these next ten years that we take advantage of this great opportunity, not for financial gain, but to end a culture by which we commoditize humanity.
Pope Francis attacks 'cult of money' in reform call
"Attacking unchecked capitalism, the pope said the growing inequality in society was caused by 'ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good'."

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: May 10, 2013

In a week where we had much public discourse on climate change and the political solutions, I had the luck to talk to a crowd that asked me if I had any doubt about climate change and the human role in it. I responded unequivocally that I did. Where we go from here comes down to two choices: decarbonize our energy economy or do nothing, and two possible outcomes: either the climate science is wrong (which we have already seen it is not) or it is right. If it is right and we do nothing, we will not recover as a species. If it is wrong and we deal with it, we get cleaner air, cleaner water, better health, and a more resilient economy. The choice is not really that difficult to make...just difficult to implement in the current economy and political environment.
The most controversial chart in history explained
"When he shows that graph to audiences, says Mann, 'I often hear an audible gasp.' In this sense, the hockey stick does indeed matter — for it dramatizes just how much human irresponsibility, in a relatively short period of time, can devastate the only home we have."

For those who may not get swayed by data, charts and graphs, perhaps real images of how we have changed our world will put the issue in perspective.
How humans are changing the planet - in 7 dramatic GIFs
"'Much like the iconic image of Earth from the Apollo 17 mission--which had a profound effect on many of us--this time-lapse map is not only fascinating to explore,' Google Earth's Rebecca Moore writes, 'but we also hope it can inform the global community's thinking about how we live on our planet and the policies that will guide us in the future.'"

Recent revelations about possible bipartisan acknowledgement of climate change and our role in it gives hope for a political solution. The market and voluntary efforts can only go so far, but we as a nation need a way to cover the costs to each one of us brought upon by the fossil fuel industry. If a carbon tax that offsets income tax can move forward, it is not an ideal solution, but it puts the cost of fuel on those who use it, which is the way that a market is supposed to work.
The coming GOP civil war over climate change
"And a quiet, but growing, number of other Republicans fear the same thing. Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant."

Whatever the solution, as our lives become more and more dependent on man-made technologies and business, we have to have some way of making sure that we protect our health and our families' health. Time and time again, we see that if left to their own devices, business will do what is in the interest of profit and not in the interest of individual people. As the article points out, we pay for it one way or another...one way allows us to not pay for it with the lives of our fellow citizens.
The price of safety: Why cheap regulation creates expensive crises
"Either way, we have to pay for it. But as a taxpayer or as a consumer, I would be happy to pay more if it means that the airplane I'm getting on was reviewed and tested by someone qualified who wasn't being paid by its manufacturer."

To cap off the week, an interesting discussion on how complex the interactions of an extractive economy are. Our efforts to recycle are admirable, but we need to focus even more on reducing the amount of waste we produce, and then build an economy around packaging and materials that have natural foundations so that we can return them to the growing cycle directly. When one of your top exports is garbage and scrap, that should wake a society up that something needs to change.
China doesn't even want to buy our garbage anymore
"Especially U.S. recycling programs. Those trash exports to China became indispensable for municipal recycling. In 2011, the United States recycled some 52.8 million tons of paper and paperboard — and about 15.8 million of those tons were sent to China. Likewise, China imports nearly half of America’s recycled plastics, including bottles and containers of all sorts, around $500 million worth. But now that cozy arrangement is in danger. Over at Quartz, Gwynn Guilford reports that China has recently launched 'Operation Green Fence' — a policy to prohibit the import of unwashed post-consumer plastics and other 'contaminated' waste shipments."

Happy Friday!