Friday Five: August 22, 2014

There are times when corporations do attempt to do the "right thing" even if that means adding costs. Note, that the only thing that drives this is consumer demand. When facing a threat of extinction, a company will do what it has to in order to survive. That process, however, takes decades, and not every issue has that long.
Nestle imposes animal welfare standards for suppliers
"'We know that our consumers care about the welfare of farm animals and we, as a company, are committed to ensuring the highest possible levels of farm animal welfare across our global supply chain,' said Benjamin Ware, manager of responsible sourcing for Nestle.
The commitment by the world's largest food and beverage company could potentially ripple across the industry and force smaller firms to adhere to the same practices, animal advocates said."

More often, companies will do whatever is most expedient to achieve or increase profitability (note: that is not a disparaging remark, for in our society and economy, that is precisely all we currently as of business, and all they are good at doing), regardless of the environmental impact. Only when the purchasing power of those affected reaches a critical mass will the companies act...or when something large enough to affect its business acts (hint: that's government).
Frackers are sending sludge to the Mitten State
"Now, the radioactive sludge that was being turned away by Pennsylvania was on its way to Michigan, home to 84 percent of the country’s aboveground freshwater supply. LuAnne Kozma began to do some digging. She had begun studying up on and organizing against Michigan’s nascent fracking boom two years ago, after hearing ominous stories from family in New Jersey. This was a new wrinkle."

Too often, governments require a catastrophe in order to see the need for action. Even then, as this case exemplifies, many favor taxpayer-funded solutions for the mistakes of the shareholders and managers. Letting companies off the hook for their mismanagement - and frankly, their negligent endangerment of people - is something we would never allow in treating an individual person who jeopardized the life of another. We should not tolerate it of companies.
NC lawmakers pass coal ash legislation; adjourn after very long short session
"Rep. Paul Luebke argued that state leaders needed to say, loud and clear, that Duke and its shareholders – not its customers – should at least pay to clean the highest-risk sites by removing the ash to a lined landfill, by using it in certain construction projects or by installing a liner beneath the ash.
“If they’re high risk now, it means for a long time they were risky to the public. For a long time the public was hurt by contamination in groundwater,” the Durham Democrat said on the chamber floor.
In response, Rep. Mike Hager, Republican majority whip, pointed out that the N.C. Utilities Commission would handle any request for a rate increase, with opportunity for the public to have its say."

One of the more broken features of the current utility model (especially in states where utilities still own electricity generating or energy producing assets) is that these monopolies have been allowed to assume that any cost associated with a current asset can be passed onto their rate payers (citizens who have no choice but to pay them or do without power). Kudos to OPU for demanding that the utility consider all alternative investments to the status quo...both to protect rate payers and public health.
Oregon Public Utilities Commission increases scrutiny on Pacific Power's coal plants
"In 2012, the Oregon PUC disallowed $17 million dollars that PacifiCorp was seeking from its customers for expensive retrofits on its aging coal plants without first fully vetting the alternatives. During the deliberations on their 2013 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) they were warned by the commission that they were headed for a 'trainwreck of a rate case' if they continued to invest heavily in out-of-state coal plants without first presenting their plans to the PUC for proper analysis. In July of this year, the PUC refused to acknowledge Pacific Power’s expenditures at two units at the Jim Bridger coal plant in Wyoming and one unit at the Hunter plant in Utah, a strong signal that the company will have a difficult time recouping those expenses, protecting Oregon customers from higher rates."

The great thing about analyzing the German governments three-year plan for energy transition, and debating some of its many shortcomings is...THEY HAVE A PLAN!!!!
There's a reason that countries like Germany and China will fly past the US economically if we do not act soon...they recognize the impact that energy has on their economy, and Germany specifically is doing something about it. I would LOVE to be debating the shortcomings of US energy policy....but we do not have one, so I cannot.
German government’s three-year Energiewende plan
"Germany could easily do more, as could the EU. Brussels repeatedly calls for greater cross-border power trading, but where is the call for EU transport policy? I can’t take a night train, say, from Frankfurt to Rome or Madrid. Trains continue to be stuck in national systems, and no one is complaining. Instead, Switzerland is the driver behind overnight trains with its City Night Line, but it has been reducing the number of connections in recent years, not increasing them.
So yes, the chart above does have a wide scope. But it is not exhaustive. There is still a lot of room for improvement."

Happy Friday!

When the canary dies, you don't walk deeper into the mine

Startling news came out this week on the island nation of Kiribati, in the south Pacific, purchasing land in Fiji to start growing food.  On the tiny island nation, rising sea levels have made former agricultural land unfit for growing the food that the citizens of the country need.  As sea levels continue to rise, the country will run out, and would otherwise have to turn to buying food from other nations - which will prove tough given their economic standing.  This investment in land gives them an opportunity to stave off starvation, at least for now.

The president of Kiribati has a longer-term strategy for the land purchase: A future home for the people of Kiribati when the islands fall completely under the sea.  As an article in the Guardian points out, the president does not know if the land purchased will provide enough space for the population of just over 100,000 people, but they will do what they must to survive.  For island nations like Kiribati and the Maldives (per capita income $6,000 and $9,000 respectively; US at over $50,000) the prospect of paying to move the equivalent of an entire American suburb poses challenges that these nations do not have the resources yet to overcome.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes in detail the challenges these countries will face due to sea level rise, and identifies rising CO2 in the atmosphere as part of the cause.  Although large-scale phenomena like this have many causes, it appears likely that carbon emissions in developing countries have contributed to the rate at which this change occurs, if not the entire event.  If this is the case, then who should pay for the relocation?  Should these nations bear all of the burden?  Should developed nations bear the responsibility?  

The questions become even more interesting when we consider the possibility that we may soon feel this sort of impact closer to home.  Miami has already experienced severe weather events that have submerged large portions of the city. As sea levels continue to rise, by the end of the century, Miami may sit completely under water.  The Outer Banks of North Carolina may experience a similar fate, to the point where propertyowners have lobbied the legislature to prevent their property values from declining.  Who wants to buy a property that will likely sit underwater in a couple of decades?

We need to change our practices related to energy use and carbon emissions immediately.  That will do little to solve the problems of Kiribati, as sea levels would continue to rise even if we stopped all carbon emissions today.  As President Tong has noted, however, these island can serve as a "canary in the coal mine", warning us of what our future can hold if we do not act.  As we act, we must also take responsibility for our actions and provide the resources that the people of Kiribati, Maldives, and all the other nations who must relocate or significantly adapt their infrastructure to survive.  If we deny this help, and bury our heads in the sand, then eventually, we seal our own fate as Miami, New Orleans, and even New York or D.C. become the next areas that must relocate to survive. 

Moving 100,000 people presents challenges that we can overcome as a world....moving 10 million or more would present economic challenges from which we may never recover if we have to bear the cost alone.  Better to heed the warning of the canary than to end up standing knee deep on Broadway thinking we were sure that climate change was not real.