The Energy Challenge: Nuclear Power May Be in Early Stages of a Revival

After three decades without starting a single new plant, the American nuclear power industry is getting ready to build again.

When the industry first said several years ago that it would resume building plants, deep skepticism greeted the claim. Not since 1973 had anybody in the United States ordered a nuclear plant that was actually built, and the obstacles to a new generation of plants seemed daunting.

But now, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 21 companies say they will seek permission to build 34 power plants, from New York to Texas. Factories are springing up in Indiana and Louisiana to build reactor parts. Workers are clearing a site in Georgia to put in reactors. Starting in January, millions of electric customers in Florida will be billed several dollars a month to finance four new reactors.

On Thursday, the French company Areva, the world’s largest builder of nuclear reactors, and Northrop Grumman announced an investment of more than $360 million at a shipyard in Newport News, Va., to build components for seven proposed American reactors, and more for export.

The change of fortune has come so fast that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which had almost forgotten how to accept an application, has gone into a frenzy of hiring, bringing on hundreds of new engineers to handle the crush of applications. Many problems could derail the so-called nuclear revival, and virtually no one believes all 34 proposed plants will be built. It is still unclear how many billions they would cost, whether the expense can be financed in a troubled credit market, and how the cost might compare with other power sources.
But experts who follow the industry expect that at least some of the 34 will be built.

Click here to read the full NY Times article.

Third Passaic River Symposium are Now Available on the Web

Full presentations (and abstracts) from the Third Passaic River Symposium are now available on the Symposium web site, http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/pri/symposium2008/
The program booklet, which includes all abstracts, is available on the web site as well.

The Symposium was organized by the Passaic River Institute of Montclair State University, held on October 16 2008 on the University campus. It featured the "Lower Passaic River Restoration Project" as well as projects and issues in the upper River and tributary watersheds such as flooding and phosphorus loading. Congressman Bill Pascrell gave opening remarks. The heads of three major agencies spoke (USEPA Region 2, NJDEP, US Corps of Engineers NY District), giving an update on Passaic Basin issues from their agencies' perspectives. The Symposium attracted about 280 participants.

You can read a wrap-up story about the Symposium on from the Montclair State web site,
http://www.montclair.edu/news/article.php?ChannelID=7&ArticleID=2761
This page also has links to media coverage of the symposium.

LEGISLATION TO SHIFT BURDEN OF FUNDING SUPERFUND FROM TAXPAYERS TO POLLUTERS

Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced legislation to renew support for the Superfund Trust Fund by reinstating fees to ensure that polluters provide a dedicated revenue source to fund the cleanup of the most contaminated toxic waste sites across the country. The Bush Administration shifted the burden of funding the Superfund from polluters to taxpayers when it allowed the trust fund to go bankrupt five years ago. As a result, the number of cleanups has dropped dramatically. Senators Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) joined as cosponsors of the legislation.

“New Jersey has more Superfund sites than any other state in the nation. Right now, the Superfund Trust Fund has run dry, stalling the clean-up of toxic chemicals in our communities,” Senator Lautenberg said. “It's critical we get these sites cleaned up and we need to make the polluters – and not taxpayers – foot the bill.”

“This administration has cared more about shielding polluters than protecting Americans from harmful toxic waste. Without a dedicated revenue source, the Superfund simply cannot effectively complete its important cleanup missions. This legislation will put the responsibility for cleaning up toxic sites back on polluters and off of the American taxpayers,” Senator Clinton said.

Senator Boxer said, “I am proud to join Senator Clinton and my other colleagues to ensure that polluters pay to clean up the most contaminated toxic waste sites.”

Originally signed into law in 1980, Superfund is the federal program for the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. At the heart of the law is the commitment to ensure that the polluters responsible for the contamination, and not the general public, pay for the cleanup.
In the mid and late 1990s, Superfund cleaned up an average of 86 sites per year, but this number fell dramatically under the Bush Administration. One important reason for the decline in cleanups is that President Bush has failed to support reinstating the fees on polluters that had long supported the Superfund. The Superfund Trust Fund ran out of money five years ago, and since then the program has been funded completely with general revenue.

Since losing that source of funding, the Superfund program has seen dramatic reductions in the number of cleanups of hazardous sites completed nationwide. The Environmental Protection Agency completed construction on only 24 sites in fiscal year 2007, far less than the 87 achieved in the final year of the Clinton Administration. More than 1250 toxic waste sites on the Superfund National Priority List still await cleanup, while more wait to even be listed for Superfund cleanup. New York has 86 sites on the Superfund list.

Click here for the full article.

House Approves Offshore Drilling Bill

Legislation to increase domestic energy supplies through expanded offshore drilling and investment in renewable energy and conservation won approval in the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday by a vote of 236-189.

If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act will allow oil and gas drilling in federal waters more than 100 miles off the coast and provide for drilling between 50-100 miles off the coast at the discretion of individual states. Senate approval before the November election is considered unlikely.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who has opposed offshore drilling in the past, now supports this bill, which she said Tuesday, "will be significant in ensuring American energy independence and strengthening our national security."

"This energy legislation is the result of reasonable compromise that will put us on the path toward energy independence by expanding domestic supply, protect consumers with strong action to lower the costs of energy and to protect taxpayers by making Big Oil pay for its fair share of our transition to a clean, renewable energy future, ensure a clean, green future through energy efficiency and conservation, and commit America to renewable energy and help create millions of good-paying green jobs."

Click here for the full Environmental News Services article.

Tapping Power From Trash

WHEN talk turns to alternative energy and global warming, let us not forget stinking piles of garbage. Buried in airless pockets deep inside landfills, the organic matter in these great mounds of waste is consumed by bacteria that give off gas rich in methane, increasingly used to generate electricity and heat.

In fact, power from landfill methane exceeds solar power in New York and New Jersey, and landfill methane in those states and in Connecticut powers generators that produce a total of 169 megawatts of electricity — almost as much as a small conventional generating station. The methane also provides 16.7 million cubic feet of gas daily for heating and other direct uses.

There is ample opportunity for energy-producing projects at more landfills, according to the EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program and officials and groups in the three states. As scouring for alternative energy intensifies, landfill methane is getting more attention from state, federal and local governments together with private energy and waste-management companies, landfill owners and energy entrepreneurs.

If it is not captured, the E.P.A. says, landfill methane becomes a greenhouse gas at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, when it rises into the atmosphere. The agency estimates that landfills account for 25 percent of all methane releases linked to human activity.



Click here to see the full NY Times article.

EPA: General Electric Must Revise River Clean Up Plan

General Electric's cleanup proposal for PCB contamination of the Housatonic River south of Pittsfield, Massachusetts raises more than 150 concerns, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The river sediment is polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, south of the GE property where the company formerly manufactured electrical equipment such as transformers and capacitors.

In comments sent to GE in a letter Tuesday, the federal agency details issues that are inadequately addressed in the company's Corrective Measures Study, especially regarding impacts on the river ecosystem during cleanup work, and impacts on aesthetic enjoyment of the area by local residents.

GE must now address the concerns raised by the agency and submit additional detailed information within 90 days. Following review of the revised GE proposal, the EPA will propose its own preferred clean up alternative for a final cleanup remedy.

"Cleaning up the portions of the Housatonic River south of Pittsfield is one of the most significant environmental challenges for this generation of New Englanders," said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England office.

"It will be complicated and challenging for us to both remove elevated levels of PCBs from the river, while also protecting the valuable aesthetic and recreational values of this beautiful rural waterway," he said. "We can all agree that we need to do this work, and get it right."

During the review of the 700-plus page Corrective Measures Study, EPA received hundreds of comments from area residents and involved parties, including several state government agencies in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Varney said the public comments "reflected EPA concerns that the CMS as submitted did not adequately address impacts to the river ecosystem, to sensitive species, and to aesthetic, recreational and quality-of-life values of the river for area residents." He said the EPA also is concerned that the GE study does not provide adequate detail on potential placement of a landfill for consolidation of, or facilities for treatment of, the contaminated sediment that will be removed from the river.

Click here for the full Environmental News Service article.

Technology Review: How Obama Really Did It - The social-networking strategy that took an obscure senator to the doors of the White House.

Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign manager and Internet impresario, describes Super Tuesday II--the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island--as the moment Barack Obama used social tech­nology to decisive effect. The day's largest hoard of dele­gates would be contested in Texas, where a strong showing would require exceptional discipline and voter-education efforts. In Texas, Democrats vote first at the polls and then, if they choose, again at caucuses after the polls close. The caucuses award one-third of the Democratic delegates.

Hillary Clinton's camp had about 20,000 volunteers at work in Texas. But in an e-mail, Trippi learned that 104,000 Texans had joined Obama's social-­networking site, www.my.barackobama.com, known as MyBO. MyBO and the main Obama site had already logged their share of achievements, particularly in helping rake in cash. The month before, the freshman senator from Illinois had set a record in American politics by garnering $55 million in donations in a single month. In Texas, MyBO also gave the Obama team the instant capacity to wage fully networked campaign warfare. After seeing the volunteer numbers, Trippi says, "I remember saying, 'Game, match--it's over.'"

The Obama campaign could get marching orders to the Texans registered with MyBO with minimal effort. The MyBO databases could slice and dice lists of volunteers by geographic micro­region and pair people with appropriate tasks, including prepping nearby voters on caucus procedure. "You could go online and download the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 100 people in your neighborhood to get out and vote--or the 40 people on your block who were undecided," Trippi says. "'Here is the leaflet: print it out and get it to them.' It was you, at your computer, in your house, printing and downloading. They did it all very well." Clinton won the Texas primary vote 51 to 47 percent. But Obama's ­people, following their MyBO playbook, so overwhelmed the chaotic, crowded caucuses that he scored an overall victory in the Texas delegate count, 99 to 94. His showing nearly canceled out ­Clinton's win that day in Ohio. Clinton lost her last major opportunity to stop the Obama juggernaut. "In 1992, Carville said, 'It's the economy, stupid,'" Trippi says, recalling the exhortation of Bill Clinton's campaign manager, James Carville. "This year, it was the network, stupid!"

Click here for the full Technology Review article.

Corporate types getting into blogging

With the connection between new media and business development, many corporations have turned to blogging to try and better communicate with their customers. Project Navigator has developed a PRP blog, http://www.prpblog.com/, and uses this tool to facilitate information exchange with our own clients.

Excerpt from LA Times Article: Corporate types getting into blogging
Experts say it’s a useful tool for talking directly to customers or giving a personal touch to a big business. Jason Calacanis, who got into blogging early and big, has quit.

He co-founded a network of blogs called Weblogs in 2003, before the medium cracked the mainstream, and then sold it to AOL in 2005, working there until 2007. Today he is chief executive of Mahalo, a search engine guided by editors rather than algorithms.

After five years of writing on tech industry topics as well as personal ones and building an audience of 10,000 to 20,000 daily visitors, Calacanis said, he got tired of all the nasty comments and “link-baiters,” people who post comments just to promote their own blogs. So he signed off, leaving the blogosphere to others.

One group that has been firing up its keyboards is corporate types. Of about 112.5 million blogs on the Web, almost 5,000 are corporate, according to blog indexer Technorati. Calacanis blogged to start conversations and be a part of a virtual community, but corporate bloggers are in it for other reasons: to talk directly to customers or give a personal touch to a big business.

“It’s a phenomenal promotion vehicle for a company, or a great crisis tool or a great customer service tool,” said Geoff Livingston, a public relations strategist and social media expert.
Honest Tea Inc. of Bethesda, Md., launched its blog in late 2005 as a way to get close to customers. With a name like Honest Tea, Chief Executive Seth Goldman said, “we’re trying to be as open and disclose as much information as we can.”

When the company announced that Coca-Cola Co. would acquire a 40% interest in the brand, many of Honest Tea’s customers who opposed the agreement took their complaints to the blog.

Click here for the full LA Times article.

EcoDriving Through the Green States

Hypermiling, a way of driving to maximize fuel economy, has gone mainstream and bipartisan.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers started a new website today, http://www.ecodrivingusa.com/, to promote driving and vehicle maintenance habits that can reduce fuel consumption. Its first two spokesmen for the effort are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican governor of California, and Bill Ritter, Democratic governor of Colorado.

Underscoring their united efforts, the site proclaims: "Red State. Blue State. Through EcoDriving, we can all be green states." The interactive site lists a variety of ways to wring the most miles out of every gallon of gasoline, from avoiding idling the car for more than 30 seconds to using the "recycle inside air" feature to reduce air-conditioning demands. In a video message posted on the site's home page Schwarzenegger underscores the immediate benefits of learning how to "ecodrive."

"We hear a lot of ideas from politicians about lowering the gas prices and fighting global warming, whether it is biofuels, offshore drilling or nuclear power," he says. "But none of those will affect gas prices right now. Only you can do that. ... Each of us has the power to make a difference right now." How? The site lists 26 driving and vehicle-maintenance tips that it says can collectively boost fuel economy by 15 percent. For example:

- Drive with a feather foot rather than a lead foot, avoiding rapid acceleration and hard stops.
On warm days, roll down the windows to cool off if driving slower than 40 mph. At speeds above 40 mph, using air conditioning is more efficient.

- Use cruise control selectively. The feature saves energy on flat terrains, but on hilly routes, cruise control may cause the engine to speed up unnecessarily while climbing hills and slow down while descending.

- Check tire pressure regularly, use "energy conserving" motor oil if available and appropriate for your engine, replace clogged air filters and keep vehicle properly tuned.Schwarzenegger says that if every driver followed "ecodriving" practices, the reductions in climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions "would be an equivalent to heating and powering nearly eight cities the size of Los Angeles."

"Ecodriving" is also known as hypermiling, a term coined by Wayne Gerdes, owner and administrator of http://www.cleanmpg.com/. That website is billed as an online community of people guided by the motto, "Learn to raise fuel economy and lower emissions in whatever you drive."
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the trade group Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said much the same thing in a statement introducing his organization's campaign.

Click here for the full Environmental News Service article.

Court Rejects E.P.A. Limits on Emissions Rules

A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out an Environmental Protection Agency rule limiting the ability of states to require monitoring of industrial emissions.

The 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is the most recent in a series of judicial setbacks to the Bush administration’s efforts to reshape federal policies under the Clean Air Act. Under 1990 amendments to the original Clean Air Act, states were allowed to issue permits limiting pollution emissions from industrial facilities, like refineries or utilities. To ensure compliance, Congress required states to set more stringent monitoring requirements if they deemed federal requirements inadequate.

The E.P.A. gave states this leeway until 2006, when it reversed course and prohibited the states from requiring new monitoring. Environmental groups challenged the agency, saying that the new rule kept public agencies from gathering and making available the best data about industrial contributions to air pollution.

“E.P.A.’s about-face means that some permit programs do not comply” with federal law, Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote in the majority opinion. He added that thousands of permits allowing the operation of industrial facilities might not comply with the law “because their monitoring requirements are invalid.”

Judge David B. Sentelle joined Judge Griffith’s opinion. The ruling by the court, which has jurisdiction over most federal agency rules, was another judicial rebuke to the E.P.A.’s recent policies, leaving few of its major initiatives on air pollution intact. The suit, brought by the Sierra Club, was opposed by the environmental agency and several industry groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute.

“I think it is fair to say that the D.C. Circuit has repudiated the vast bulk of the Bush administration’s clean-air regulatory reforms, which were the administration’s most notable and significant (if not always wise) environmental policy initiatives,” Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, commented on the case on a legal affairs blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. In an interview, Professor Adler said the agency “was giving business a bit of a break; was saying to states: You can’t do more.”

Click here for the NY Times article.

Changes in Environmental Reviews Are Sought

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is proposing to let federal agencies decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants, according to a draft of planned rule changes obtained by The Associated Press.

The proposed regulations, which do not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday that the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act not be used as a “back door” to regulate the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.

The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats. “We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good,” Mr. Kempthorne said in a news conference organized quickly after The A.P. reported details of the proposal.

“It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species,” he added. “It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse-gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species.”

If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of endangered species regulations since 1986. They would accomplish through rules what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the proposed changes illegal.

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed immediately, officials said. They would be subject to a 30-day public comment period before being made final by the Interior Department.
A new administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, a process that could take months. Congress could also overturn the rules through legislation, but that could take even longer.

Click here to read the full NY Times article.

Two Large Solar Plants Planned in California

Companies will build two solar power plants in California that together will put out more than 12 times as much electricity as the largest such plant today, the latest indication that solar energy is starting to achieve significant scale.

The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant. A megawatt is enough power to run a large Wal-Mart store.

The power will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric, which is under a state mandate to get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. The utility said that it expected the new plants, which will use photovoltaic technology to turn sunlight directly into electricity, to be competitive with other renewable energy sources, including wind turbines and solar thermal plants, which use the sun’s heat to boil water.

“These market-leading projects we have in California are something that can be extrapolated around the world,” Jennifer Zerwer, a spokeswoman for the utility, said. “It’s a milestone.”
Though the California installations will generate 800 megawatts at times when the sun is shining brightly, they will operate for fewer hours of the year than a coal or nuclear plant would and so will produce a third or less as much total electricity.

OptiSolar, a company that has just begun making a type of solar panel with a thin film of active material, will install 550 megawatts in San Luis Obispo County. The SunPower Corporation, which uses silicon-crystal technology, will build about 250 megawatts at a different location in the same county.

Click here to read the full NY Times article.

Turning Waste Material Into Ethanol

By combining gasification with high-tech nanoscale porous catalysts, they hope to create ethanol from a wide range of biomass, including distiller’s grain left over from ethanol production, corn stover from the field, grass, wood pulp, animal waste, and garbage.

Gasification is a process that turns carbon-based feedstocks under high temperature and pressure in an oxygen-controlled atmosphere into synthesis gas, or syngas. Syngas is made up primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (more than 85 percent by volume) and smaller quantities of carbon dioxide and methane.

It’s basically the same technique that was used to extract the gas from coal that fueled gas light fixtures prior to the advent of the electric light bulb. The advantage of gasification compared to fermentation technologies is that it can be used in a variety of applications, including process heat, electric power generation, and synthesis of commodity chemicals and fuels.

“There was some interest in converting syngas into ethanol during the first oil crisis back in the 70s,” said Ames Lab chemist and Chemical and Biological Science Program Director Victor Lin. “The problem was that catalysis technology at that time didn’t allow selectivity in the byproducts. They could produce ethanol, but you’d also get methane, aldehydes and a number of other undesirable products.”

A catalyst is a material that facilitates and speeds up a chemical reaction without chemically changing the catalyst itself. In studying the chemical reactions in syngas conversion, Lin found that the carbon monoxide molecules that yielded ethanol could be “activated” in the presence of a catalyst with a unique structural feature.

“If we can increase this ‘activated’ CO adsorption on the surface of the catalyst, it improves the opportunity for the formation of ethanol molecules,” Lin said. “And if we can increase the amount of surface area for the catalyst, we can increase the amount of ethanol produced.”

Click here for the full Science Daily article.

Using Live Fish, New Tool A Sentinel For Environmental Contamination

By measuring rates of oxygen use in developing fish, which are sensitive to contaminants and stressful conditions, the technology could reveal the presence of minute levels of toxic substances before they cause more obvious and substantial harm. It could be used as an early warning system against environmental contamination or even biological weapons, said Purdue University researcher Marshall Porterfield, an associate professor of agricultural and biological engineering.

Respiration, the process wherein animals and other organisms burn oxygen to produce energy, is often the first of a fish's bodily functions affected by contaminants. The technology uses fiber optics to quickly monitor this activity and produce results within minutes, Porterfield said.
"Say you are exposed to the common cold virus," he said. "Before symptoms develop and you become aware of the bug's presence, it has already begun to attack your cells. Similarly, fish and other organisms are affected by contaminants before behavioral changes appear. Our technology detects heretofore undetectable changes to act as an early warning system."

In a study published online last week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, the system detected the presence of several common pollutants such as the widely-used herbicide atrazine – even at levels near or below those that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deems acceptable for drinking water. "This means the technology could not only help monitor environmental quality but may be used to enforce important water quality standards," said Marisol Sepulveda, lead author and assistant professor of forestry and natural resources at Purdue.

Testing also registered noticeable changes in the respiratory activity of fish embryos when the heavy metal cadmium was present at levels 60 times lower than the EPA limit, she said.
Throughout the study, contaminants did not destroy the eggs of laboratory-raised fathead minnows, a commonly studied fish species. This further demonstrates the tool's ability to discern subtle changes before they become fatal, Sepulveda said.

In the laboratory, researchers first manually positioned a tiny optical electrode, or optrode just outside individual embryos of two-day-old fathead minnows. At 1.5 millimeters in diameter, they were slightly smaller than the head of a pin, said primary author and Purdue doctoral student Brian Sanchez.

A fluorescent substance coated the electrode tip, its optical properties varying predictably with oxygen concentration. This allowed researchers to take quick measurements at locations only micrometers apart, moving the electrode via a computer-driven motor, Sanchez said. These readings then allowed researchers to calculate respiration rates within the eggs, he said.

Click here to read the full Science Daily article.

Climate Experts Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash.

When science is testing new ideas, the result is often a two-papers-forward-one-paper-back intellectual tussle among competing research teams. When the work touches on issues that worry the public, affect the economy or polarize politics, the news media and advocates of all stripes dive in. Under nonstop scrutiny, conflicting findings can make news coverage veer from one extreme to another, resulting in a kind of journalistic whiplash for the public.

This has been true for decades in health coverage. But lately the phenomenon has been glaringly apparent on the global warming beat.

Discordant findings have come in quick succession. How fast is Greenland shedding ice? Did human-caused warming wipe out frogs in the American tropics? Has warming strengthened hurricanes? Have the oceans stopped warming? These questions endure even as the basic theory of a rising human influence on climate has steadily solidified: accumulating greenhouse gases will warm the world, erode ice sheets, raise seas and have big impacts on biology and human affairs.

Scientists see persistent disputes as the normal stuttering journey toward improved understanding of how the world works. But many fear that the herky-jerky trajectory is distracting the public from the undisputed basics and blocking change. “One of the things that troubles me most is that the rapid-fire publication of unsettled results in highly visible venues creates the impression that the scientific community has no idea what’s going on,” said W. Tad Pfeffer, an expert on Greenland’s ice sheets at the University of Colorado.

“Each new paper negates or repudiates something emphatically asserted in a previous paper,” Dr. Pfeffer said. “The public is obviously picking up on this not as an evolution of objective scientific understanding but as a proliferation of contradictory opinions.”

Several experts on the media and risk said that one result could be public disengagement with the climate issue just as experts are saying ever more forcefully that sustained attention and action are needed to limit the worst risks. Recent polls in the United States and Britain show that the public remains substantially divided and confused over what is happening and what to do. Some environmentalists have blamed energy-dependent industries and the news media for stalemates on climate policy, arguing that they perpetuate a false sense of uncertainty about the basic problem.

But scientists themselves sometimes fail to carefully discriminate between what is well understood and what remains uncertain, said Kimberly Thompson, an associate professor of risk analysis and decision science at Harvard. And, Dr. Thompson said, the flow of scientific findings from laboratory (or glacier) to journal to news report is fraught with “reinforcing loops” that can amplify small distortions.

For example, she said, after scientists learn that accurate, but nuanced, statements are often left out of news accounts, they may pre-emptively oversimplify their description of some complex finding. Better, but more difficult, Dr. Thompson said, would be to work with the reporter to characterize the weight of evidence behind the new advance and seek to place it in context.

Click here to read the full NY Times article.

Garbage as Fuel?

We all remember the end of 'Back to the Future' when the Doc fills up his DeLorean with garbage. Well, one of the areas of biofuel technology that must be watched is 'garbage as fuel'. A recent New York Times article, Gassing Up With Garbage, solidly summarized the existing condition of the quest.

As with most venture capital projects, there is no agreed-upon timeline, for full-scale production, but the market is making the research and long-term viability spring to life. Much of the garbage will be agricultural waste (see the photo of pine waste collected by the Forest Service). Garbage as fuel can be part of the mandated 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022 solution.

Perhaps the day will come when landfills will be mined for organics and the operators can get paid twice for our waste!

It's Easy Being Green: Save Money, Save Emissions—Work from Home

The commuter lifestyle is on its way out, and it’s taking some 26 billion pounds of carbon dioxide pollution with it. Telecommuting, or working from home, is a practice that could be the answer to ever-increasing gasoline prices and help the environment at the same time. If employees who could telecommute did so at least two days a week, their fuel consumption and cost would decrease by 40 percent—and that’s just one of the benefits.

Telecommuting is a work arrangement that allows for flexibility in hours and location. It provides more time with family members, and replaces productivity time that is normally lost in commutes. Technology plays a part as well; virtual private networks and videoconferencing are shrinking the gap between the workplace and home.

Many U.S. workers have been forced to move away from city centers in pursuit of a more affordable house and lifestyle, but they now face extraordinarily high transportation costs. Nearly half of all commuters travel more than 20 miles round trip to and from work every day, and with the average price of gas at more than $4 per gallon, it can cost hundreds of dollars to commute every week.

In addition, traffic congestion continues to worsen in American cities of every size. Not only do commuters spend 4.2 billion hours in traffic each year, this idling wastes 2.9 billion gallons of fuel—enough to fill 58 fully loaded supertankers.

Click here to read the full Center for American Progress article.

Hydrogen Cars Will Need Multi-Billion Dollar Jumpstart, Experts Warn

WASHINGTON, DC, July 18, 2008 (ENS) - It will take massive subsidies from the U.S. government to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles a significant part of the nation's transportation future, according to a National Research Council report released Thursday. The study finds that even under a best-case scenario only about two million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be on American roads by 2020, less than one percent of the nation's estimated total number of cars and trucks.

Achieving that goal would require the government to pump at least $55 billion in subsidies over the next 15 years to make hydrogen vehicles cost competitive with conventional cars and trucks, the report concluded. Current government spending has equaled some $879 million since 2004.

But the chair of the committee that wrote the report said the suggested government funding should be put in perspective with other subsidies.

If current funding and policies continue, the federal subsidy for corn-based ethanol over the same time period is on pace to reach $160 billion, said Mike Ramage, a former vice president for research and development at Exxon Mobil and chair of the 17-member panel. "We need durable, substantial and sustainable government help to make this happen, just as there is for ethanol," he said.

The 249 page report, which was requested by the U.S. Energy Department, contends that the funding may well be worth it as it could set the stage for accelerated adoption of hydrogen vehicles by mid-century. The allure of hydrogen fuel cells is their potential to help shift the U.S. transportation sector away from oil and to cut emissions linked to climate change. The only byproduct from a hydrogen fuel cell is water.

The environmental benefits of hydrogen would be "less in the early years but would be dominant" over a longer time period, Ramage told reporters on a telephone briefing.
The committee's best case scenario envisions that if the technical and economic obstacles are overcome in the next 15 years, the growth of the technology could accelerate dramatically.

Click here for the full Environment New Service article.

U.S. Corn Production Feeds Expanding Gulf Dead Zone

WASHINGTON, DC, July 15, 2008 (ENS) - This year's dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is likely to be the largest on record and growing U.S. corn production is a primary cause of the worsening conditions, federal and state scientists said Tuesday.

The research team predicts that the dead zone - a stretch of water without enough oxygen to support marine life - could cover some 8,800 square miles this summer, an area roughly the size of the state of New Jersey.

The forecast was announced today by scientists with the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium and Louisiana State University, LSU, who predicted the dead zone would be the largest since official monitoring began in 1985.

The dead zone forms annually off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, fed by nutrient heavy water from the Mississippi River. The country's largest river drains some 40 percent of the United States, including much of its agricultural heartland and its corn belt. From as far north as Minnesota, runoff water laden with fertilizer nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous flows into river and into the Gulf, stimulating an overgrowth of algae. When the algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose, depleting oxygen levels in the water and choking out marine life.

The strong link between nutrients and the dead zone indicates that excess nutrients from the Mississippi River watershed during the spring are the primary human-influenced factor behind the expansion of the dead zone," said Rob Magnien, director of the NOAA Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research.

Last year's dead zone reached some 7,900 square miles, but the record came in 2002, when the area totalled nearly 8,500 square miles. Record corn harvests throughout the Midwest are clearly adding to the problem, according to Eugene Turner, a scientist with LSU, and leader of the research team. U.S. farmers are planting "an awful lot of corn and soybeans," he told reporters, adding that both crops leach nitrogen easily into soil and groundwater.
Corn production in the United States has shot up dramatically in recent years, driven by demand for corn-based ethanol. The U.S. Agriculture Department estimates some 87 million acres of corn were planted this year.

Turner warned that the economic impact of the dead zone would again ripple through the Gulf's lucrative commercial and recreational fishing industries. "The fish and shrimp have left this area and it is inconceivable that you could have that much change on the bottom and not change the fisheries in some way," Turner said. "This area is about 25-30 percent of U.S. fisheries - it is a pretty big fishery that is under threat."

Changing conditions to prevent the annual dead zone won't be easy, he added. "It is not just a matter of turning the switch today." "It is going to have to come from changes in land use," Turner said. "We will have to reduce the amount of nitrogen coming off the watershed."

Click here for the full Environment News Service article.

Decisions Shut Door on Bush Clean-Air Steps

Any major steps by the Bush administration to control air pollution or reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases came to a dead end on Friday, the combined result of a federal court ruling and a decision by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

In the morning, a federal appeals court struck down the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy to control industrial air pollution by agreeing with arguments by the utility industry that the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority when it established the Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2005. The court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, said the rule, which set new requirements for major pollutants, had “fatal flaws.”

A few hours later, the E.P.A. chief rejected any obligation to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide under existing law, saying that to do so would involve an “unprecedented expansion” of the agency’s authority that would have “a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,” touching “every household in the land.”
Taken together, the developments make it clear that any significant new effort to fight air pollution will fall to the next president.

The comments by the E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, reinforced a message that the administration had been sending for months: that it does not intend to impose mandatory controls on the emissions that cause climate change. John Walke, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading environmental group, said, “As a result of today, July 11, the Bush administration has failed to achieve a single ounce in reductions of smog, soot, mercury or global warming pollution from power plants.”

Mr. Johnson said he was “extremely disappointed” in the court decision “because it’s overturning one of the most significant and health-protective rules in our nation’s history.”
But on climate change, he said laws like the Clean Air Act were “ill-suited” to the complexities of regulating greenhouse gases.

Mr. Johnson’s comments appeared as a preface to a report by the E.P.A. staff sketching out how the emission of heat-trapping gases, particularly by vehicles, might be handled under the Clean Air Act. The report was intended to address a Supreme Court directive that the agency decide whether such gases threaten people’s health or welfare. But it also reflects the deep disapproval of controls on such gases by the White House and agencies like the Transportation, Agriculture and Commerce Departments.

Click here for the full article.

Richest Nations Pledge to Halve Greenhouse Gas

RUSUTSU, Japan — President Bush and leaders of the world’s richest nations pledged Tuesday to “move toward a low-carbon society” by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, the latest step in a long evolution by a president who for years played down the threat of global warming.
The declaration by the Group of 8 — the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia — was the first time that the Bush White House had publicly backed an explicit long-term target for eliminating the gases that scientists have said are warming the planet. But it failed to set a goal for cutting emissions over the next decade, and drew sharp criticism from environmentalists, who called it a missed opportunity.
On Wednesday, leaders of developing nations took up the climate change issue and said that they too supported “a long-term global goal for emission reductions,” but they were not specific and fell short of supporting the Group of 8 declaration.
In a sense, the Group of 8 document represents an environmental quid pro quo. In exchange for agreeing to the “50 by 2050” language, Mr. Bush got what he has sought as his price for joining an international accord: a statement from the rest of the Group of 8 that developing nations like China and India, which have not accepted mandatory caps on carbon emissions, must be included in any climate change treaty.
European leaders, who have long pressed Mr. Bush to take a more aggressive stance on global warming, said the declaration could enhance efforts to reach a binding agreement to reduce emissions when negotiators meet in Copenhagen next year under United Nations auspices.

Click here to read the full NY Times article.

States Can Pursue Their Own Emissions Standards, says Federal Court

In the continuing saga of whether California, and 15 other states, can set their own emissions standards, a Federal Court gave a win to environmentalists and threw out a suit brought on by 10 automakers. The lawsuit was an attempt to block implementation of a California law. The California law under question requires an average mileage rating of 41 mpg by 2015 (the recent federal law requires 37 mpg by 2015).

In Monday's decision, the judge took what environmental lawyers described as an unusually strident tone in denying appeals by the automakers to delay implementation of the California law until 2017 in the event that a Clean Air Act waiver from the EPA was granted.
The judge also rejected the automakers' interpretation of a federal statute -- revolving around the word "or" -- that would make California's law unenforceable.

"The interpretation requested is without support in law, logic, or grammar," the judge wrote, denying all the motions filed by the auto industry and calling for the case to be wrapped up within 30 days.

Remember, California requested a waiver from the Clean Air Act in order to set their own emissions standards. The EPA declined the waiver, for one of the few times in EPA history and its rationale has been shady, at best.

As a side note, Congress asked the EPA for documents related to the December 2007 Clean Air Act waiver denial be handed over in an investigation, but the White House refused and cited 'executive privilege'. Both Senators Obama and McCain support the waiver.

The Little Solar Guys May Lose in the Long Run

A New York Times article today outlines the growing pains of the nation's solar market. When states, such as New Jersey and California, offer solar rebates they find that the rebate program lags too far behind to satisfy customers, the State, and small installers.

New Jersey's answer is to phase out the rebate program in favor of an energy credit market. Larger companies would gain a distinct advantage and would force smaller companies out of business merely because of their size and access to capital. They can purchase energy credits and/or gain credits through new installations. Small companies will be squeezed out of this market because of their lack of working capital.

Large companies are already working with customers through power purchase agreements. These agreements give customers lower rates on electricity and the installation company finances and owns the equipment.

The agreements are a good plan for many residential customers and they will become more commonplace in years to come. Energy credit markets are also inevitable. The question remains: do we allow the small installers to survive in spite of these initiatives or are they fallout from the solar industry's growing pains?

Bush Will Seek to End Offshore Oil Drilling Ban

President Bush, reversing a longstanding position, will call on Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling, according to White House officials who say Mr. Bush now wants to work with states to determine where drilling should occur.

The move underscores how $4-a-gallon gas has become a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, and it comes as a growing number of Republicans are lining up in opposition to the federal ban.

The party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, used a speech in Houston on Tuesday to say he now favors offshore drilling, an announcement that infuriated environmentalists who have long viewed him as an ally. Florida’s governor, Charlie Crist, a Republican, immediately joined Mr. McCain, saying he, too, now wants an end to the ban.
Even before the disclosure of Mr. Bush’s decision, the drilling issue caused a heated back-and-forth on the campaign trail on Tuesday, as Mr. McCain sought to straddle the divide between environmentalists and the energy industry, while facing accusations from his Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama, that he had flip-flopped and capitulated to the oil industry.
In Washington, the White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Mr. Bush would urge Congress to “pass legislation lifting the Congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling,” adding, “The president believes Congress shouldn’t waste any more time.”

Click here for the full NY Times article.

Latest Honda Runs on Hydrogen, Not Petroleum

On Monday, Honda Motor celebrated the start of production of its FCX Clarity, the world’s first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production. In a ceremony at a factory an hour north of Tokyo, the first assembly-line FCX Clarity rolled out to the applause of hundreds of Honda employees wearing white jump suits.

Honda will make just 200 of the futuristic vehicles over the next three years, but said it eventually planned to increase production volumes, especially as hydrogen filling stations became more common.

Honda said even the small initial production run represented progress toward a clean-burning technology that many rejected as too exotic and too expensive to gain wide acceptance.

But the technology has faced many hurdles, not the least of which has been the prohibitive cost of the fuel cells themselves. Honda says it has found ways to mass produce them, which promises to drive down costs through economies of scale. On Monday, it showed reporters its fuel-cell production line, which resembled a semiconductor factory more than an auto plant with its humming automated machinery and white smocked workers in dust-free rooms.

Click here for the full NY Times article.

China Pulls Ahead in the Great Carbon Race

For awhile it was neck and neck, but China has now clearly pulled ahead of the United States and become the world’s dominant source of carbon dioxide emissions. Elisabeth Rosenthal reports Friday on the results of a new analysis of emissions trends by the Dutch government. Here’s the lede:

China has clearly overtaken the United States as the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, a new study has found, its emissions increasing 8 percent in 2007. The Chinese increase accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the year’s global greenhouse gas emissions, the study found.

The report, released Friday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, found that in 2007 China’s emissions were 14 percent higher than those of the United States. In the previous year’s annual study, the researchers found for the first time that China had become the world’s leading emitter, with carbon emissions 7 percent higher by volume than the United States in 2006. Many experts had been skeptical of the earlier study, whose results were less clear-cut than those released Friday. The International Energy Agency had continued to say only that China was projected to overtake the United States by the end of 2007. Now there is little doubt.

“The difference had grown to a 14 percent difference, and that’s indeed quite large,” said Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the Dutch agency. “It’s now so large that it’s quite a robust conclusion.”

Click here for the full NY Times article.

Running in Circles Over Carbon

Cutting carbon dioxide emissions is a fine idea, and a lot of companies would be proud to do it. But they would prefer to be second, if not third or fourth.

This is not a good way to get started in fighting global warming.

As efforts to pass a global warming bill collapsed in the Senate last week, companies that burn coal to make electricity were looking for a way to build a plant that would capture its emissions. There is a will and a way — several ways, in fact — to do just that.

Capturing carbon from these plants may become a lot more important soon. Emissions from coal-fired power plants already account for about 27% of American greenhouse emissions, but as prices for other fuels rise, along with power demand, utilities will burn more coal. And if cars someday run on batteries, a trend that $4-a-gallon gasoline will accelerate, then the utilities will burn even more fuel to generate the electricity to recharge those batteries.

This could be good news, because controlling emissions from a few hundred power plants is easier than controlling them from tens of millions of house chimneys, or hundreds of millions of tailpipes. And in the laboratory, at least, there are three very promising systems for capturing carbon dioxide before pumping it underground.

But supplying electricity is not like most other businesses. Unlike the companies that make microchips, clothing for teenagers or snack foods, the companies that make electricity can see no advantage in going first. This is true for the traditionally regulated utilities that can charge everything to a captive class of customers (if regulators approve), and it is also true for the “merchant generators,” who build power plants and sell their output on the open market.

Click here full the full NY Times article.

The Truck Stops Here

The Price of Diesel Is Forcing Truckers Out of Business

Newspapers across the country are leading with coverage of new, record-breaking gas prices, which hit the $4 mark for the first time this weekend. Even more worrisome is the price of diesel, which in addition to squeezing the pockets of truck drivers across the country, is beginning to drive up the cost of all consumer goods transported by trucks, which in the United States is 70 percent. What’s more, 80 percent of communities receive all of their freight by truck, which means that these primarily rural areas, which are already hit the hardest by rising gas prices, will also be squeezed the most as prices of other consumer goods rise with the cost of diesel.

With 8.5 million Americans employed in the trucking industry, and an increasing number of truckers being forced out of business every quarter, it’s time that we find effective solutions to combat rising gas and diesel prices in the short term—such as the Center for American Progress’ proposed “reliefbate”—and make the system more efficient and sustainable in the long term.

Click here for the full Center for American Progress article.

Industrial Nations Vow to Cut Oil Use

The world’s leading economies and oil consumers are pledging greater investment in energy efficiency and green technologies to curtail petroleum use.

In a joint statement on Sunday, energy ministers from the Group of 8 countries, the United States, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada, joined by China, India and South Korea, also urged oil producers to increase output, which has stalled at about 85 million barrels a day since 2005.

They also called for cooperation between buyers and producers. But with little prospect for a surge in production anytime soon, the focus of Sunday’s meeting was on what wealthy nations should do to rein in consumption, while reducing carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

Click here for the full NY Times article.

US EPA Report on the Environment

Recently the US EPA released the Agency's 2008 Report on the Environment, also referred to as the EPA 2008 ROE. This provides the American people with an important resource from which they can better understand trends in the condition of the air, water, land, and human health of the United States.

The report discusses environmental indicators by region, such as air, water, land, etc

Click here to view the report.

Los Angeles' carbon footprint is a light one -- sort of...

According to the Brookings Institution, a prestigious Washington think tank, the Los Angeles metropolitan area emits less planet-warming carbon per capita than any big city except Honolulu, at least by some criteria.

In a report to be released today on energy use in residential buildings and highway transportation, Brookings ranks Los Angeles as greener than New York, with its network of subways; more virtuous than Portland, Ore., with its smartgrowth greenbelt, and, yes, even better than San Francisco, its eco-vain rival."We are not at all surprised," said Nancy Sutley, L.A.'s deputy mayor for energy and environment, citing the city's "moderate climate, with fewer heating and air-conditioning days, and its relatively newer, less drafty housing stock" than in many parts of the U.S.Moreover, she added, "sprawl is a lot worse in other parts of the U.S."But before the boasting starts, some words of caution: The calculations did not account for the fact that half the city's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants.

Instead, Brookings used a state-wide average that included the hydroelectric and nuclear plants in Northern California. Omitted from the data are emissions from industries and commercial buildings, and from local roads apart from federal highways.The researchers also chose metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Those areas may allow for a uniform geographical comparison, but in the case of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area, that omitted commutes from as far as Ventura, San Bernardino or Riverside counties.

"The data is fuzzy," said Andrea Sarzynski, a senior research analyst at Brookings. "We do the best we can."The 83-page report gives much of the credit to California's overall carbon-saving plans, including a stringent state building code and strict utility pricing rules for energy conservation.

Three other Golden State cities -- San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego -- rank among Brookings' top 10 in small per-capita footprints.By contrast, the report highlights the heavy carbon footprints of Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern regions of the country.

Click here for the full LA Times article.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS: Green Crude

A one year-old company in San Diego, Sapphire Energy, uses algae, sunlight, carbon dioxide, and non-potable water to make "green crude" that it contends is chemically equivalent to the light, sweet crude oil.

Chief Executive Jason Pyle said that the company's green crude could be processed in existing oil refineries and that the resulting fuels could power existing cars and trucks. It has the potential to be the great 'silver bullet' that creates the environmental paradigm shift that many people claim will be required to combat global warming.

Sapphire Energy expects to introduce its first fuels in three years and reach full commercial scale in five years.

While each acre of corn produces around 300 gallons of ethanol per year and an acre of soybeans around 60 gallons of biodiesel, EACH ACRE OF ALGAE THEORETICALLY CAN PRODUCE 5,000 GALLONS OF BIOFUEL EACH YEAR!

The company's Chief Executive wouldn't cite the price tag for producing a barrel of green crude, but he described the expected cost as competitive with extracting oil from deep-water deposits and oil sands. In other words, it won't be cheap - but they expect it to be clean in the refining process and cleaner from the tailpipe. Independent studies on the content of its emissions are ongoing.

There are plenty of companies working toward producing oil from algae. The idea isn't new, but interest and research have grown so significantly that websites such as Oilgae.com are devoted to the topic.

City dwellers produce less carbon, report suggests

While cities are hot spots for global warming, people living in them turn out to be greener than their country cousins.

Each resident of the largest 100 largest metropolitans areas is responsible on average for 2.47 tons of carbon dioxide in energy consumption each year, 14 percent below the 2.87 ton U.S. average, researchers at the Brookings Institution say in a report being released Thursday.

Those 100 cities still account for 56 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide pollution. But their greater use of mass transit and population density reduce the per person average. "It was a surprise the extent to which emissions per capita are lower," Marilyn Brown, a professor of energy policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

Metropolitan area emissions of carbon dioxide are highest in the eastern U.S., where people rely heavily on coal for electricity, the researchers found. They are lower in the West, where weather is more favorable and where electricity and motor fuel prices have been higher. The study examined sources and use of residential electricity, home heating and cooling, and transportation in 2005 in the largest 100 metropolitan areas where two-thirds of the people in the U.S. live. It attributed a wide disparity among the 100 cities to population density, availability of mass transit and weather.

Lexington, Kentucky, had the biggest per capita carbon footprint: Each resident on average accounted for 3.81 tons of carbon dioxide in their energy usage. At the other end of the scale was Honolulu, at 1.5 tons per person.

Click here to read the full CNN article.

Well-Oiled Machine?

The June issue of Time magazine is out and in it an article featuring the petroleum bonanza in Canada's tar sands.

Time is considered to be a credible magazine and readers may deem it forward-thinking. Unfortunately the author of this article is a little too short-sighted for yours truly.

"The mega-projects across Alberta's oil sands rival some of the humankind's greatest engineering achievements, including the pyramids of Giza and the Great Wall of China," claims Time. "Canada may become the new Saudi Arabia, the last great oil kingdom, right on the U.S. border."

And as for the "chunk of boreal real estate" (did they really print that?!)? The National Resource Defense Council states the following about Canada's boreal forests -- "Like the Amazon, the boreal forest is of critical importance to all living things on earth. It is home to the one of the world's largest remaining stands of spruce, fir and tamarack. The thick layers of moss, soil and peat of the boreal are the world's largest terrestrial storehouse of organic carbon and play an enormous role in regulating the Earth's climate. Boreal wetlands filter millions of gallons of water each day that fill our northern rivers, lakes, and streams. "

A slight disconnect? ......I think so.

Carbon Emissions Increase Again....

The U.S. Energy Information Administration just released preliminary data showing that carbon dioxide emissions from energy sources in the United States grew by 1.6 percent in 2007—the single largest year-over-year increase since Bush took office. This one-year increase of 96 million metric tons is like adding 14 million cars to the road. And if we look at the increase in carbon dioxide pollution from energy sources during the entire Bush administration, that sum rises to 230 million metric tons—a nearly 10 percent increase.

The jump this year comes after a small decline last year that was driven by a mild winter and summer in 2006 that enabled Americans to use less energy for heating and cooling. With weather returning to normal last year, higher electricity use is one of the largest drivers of emissions increases in both the commercial and residential sectors.

Overall emissions from the electric power sector increased by 3 percent in 2007. Coal-fired electric plants were the number one stationary source of emissions last year, accounting for a 35.3 million metric ton carbon dioxide increase between 2006 and 2007. Some utilities have turned to natural gas to try to reduce their emissions. And the increase in natural gas emissions in 2007 slightly exceeded coal—a 35.6 million metric ton increase of carbon dioxide.
Petroleum-related carbon dioxide emissions experienced a tiny decrease in 2007, mostly due to a decrease in emissions from oil-fueled electricity. Nonetheless, petroleum still generates the most emissions of all fossil fuels, surpassing coal in 2007 by 429 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. And emissions from petroleum use have grown the most since Bush took office—4.6 percent since 2001.

Click here for the full article from the Center for American Progress.

Bottlemania - The Continued Debate Over Bottled H2O

Enough already with the constant debate about bottled water. We all know it's unnecessary and frankly buying bottled water these days is more than slightly taboo. Rightly so! Don’t get me wrong, bottled water is essential for emergency circumstances, but on a daily basis it is hardly necessary.

I recently came across and article that highlights some obvious truths….

- From a marketing perspective, you couldn't ask for a more ideal product; imagine owning a commodity that literally everybody not only wants, but actually needs, on a daily basis. You'd be sitting on a $60 billion a year industry--just like the corporations who are in the process of privatizing the world's water supply. (GULP!)

- The bottled water industry has made a fortune playing on our fears about whether the water that flows from our faucets is really safe despite the fact that tap water is held to a higher standard than bottled. With a few exceptions, the quality of our tap water's actually quite high.

I think Kerry Trueman said it best—“At a time when there's less water to go around and more people demanding it, Bottlemania makes the case that it's not in our interests to let private multinational corporations float their boats on our nation's water. That's not democracy, it's dam-ocracy, and it could damn us all if we let their unquenchable thirst for profit take precedence over our right to clean, safe, free drinking water.”

Source: The Huffington Post

Drilling for Defeat?

Nearly two decades ago, Republicans won the West by linking Democrats to environmentalists, who supposedly cared more for the spotted owl and other favored species than they did for the jobs of loggers or miners. But now, as a boom in natural-gas drilling reshapes the region, Western Democrats have found success recasting environmentalism as a defense of threatened water supplies, fishing spots and hunting grounds. As a result, the party may hold the advantage this fall in the region’s key Congressional races. The simultaneous rise of Western energy production and the Western Democrat is no coincidence.

The Rocky Mountain drilling boom has been aided by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which was once considered a partisan political masterstroke. In providing incentives for energy development, Republicans delivered a profitable gift to an industry that directs most of its campaign contributions to G.O.P. candidates. That gift was sweetened by the Bureau of Land Management, which, under President Bush, has expanded the amount of federal land open to energy development and increased the number of drilling permits.

But the acceleration of energy exploration has split the national Republican Party from local Republicans upset by the downsides of the energy boom. “Republicans created a monster for themselves,” said Rick Ridder, a Colorado-based Democratic consultant. “They put public policy in direct conflict with their base voters.”

In Wyoming’s Upper North Platte Valley, Jeb Steward, a Republican state representative, helped lead the successful 2007 opposition to the B.L.M.’s proposed sale of 13 oil and gas parcels. “We have customs and cultures that have developed over a hundred years based on the utilization of multiple renewable resources — agriculture, tourism, wildlife, fisheries,” Steward said. “When B.L.M. proposed issuing the leases, residents were asking, ‘What does this mean to the lifestyles that we’ve all grown accustomed to?’ ”

Click here for the full NY Times article.

The Polar Bear Is Made a Protected Species

The polar bear, whose summertime Arctic hunting grounds have been greatly reduced by a warming climate, will be placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced on Wednesday.

The polar bear is being stressed by melting sea ice but scientists say the species would not vanish entirely for a century or more. But the long-delayed decision to list the bear as a threatened species may prove less of an impediment to oil and gas industries along the Alaskan coast than many environmentalists had hoped. Mr. Kempthorne also made it clear that it would be “wholly inappropriate” to use the listing as a tool to reduce greenhouse gases, as environmentalists had intended to do.

While giving the bear a few new protections — hunters may no longer import hides or other trophies from bears killed in Canada, for instance — the Interior Department added stipulations, seldom used under the act, that would allow oil and gas exploration and development to proceed in areas where the bears live, as long as the companies continue to comply with existing restrictions under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Click here to read the full NY Times article.

With low-carbon diets, consumers step to the plate; total energy used in food production.

Not every student in line at the University of Redlands cafeteria was ready for self-sacrifice to save the planet. "No hamburger patties?" asked an incredulous football player, repeating the words of the grill cook. He glowered at the posted sign: "Cows or cars? Worldwide, livestock emits 18% of greenhouse gases, more than the transportation sector! Today we're offering great-tasting vegetarian choices."

The portabello burger didn't beckon him. Nor the black-bean burger. "Just give me three chicken breasts, please," he said -- and with that, swaggered off to pile potato wedges onto his heaping plate. Although this perhaps wasn't the most accepting reaction, it resulted in the desired dietary shift as Bon Appetit Management Co. rolls out its new Low Carbon Diet in 400 cafes it runs at university and corporate campuses around the country. Chicken, it turns out, has a lower carbon footprint than beef.

Conscientious consumers who want to tread lightly are increasingly concerned about their own carbon footprints. They've changed lightbulbs. They covet a Prius more than a Porsche. Now their anxiety over global warming has shifted to the supermarket and dinner table. The global food and agriculture system produces about one-third of humanity's contribution to greenhouse gases. So questions about food are shifting from the familiar "Is this good for me?" or "Will it make me fat?" to "Is it good for the planet?"

But what's the right thing to do? It's not just paper versus plastic anymore. Is throwing out leftovers better than taking them home in a plastic container? Is refrigerated better than frozen? A French brie sandwich or chicken salad? Sensing this, the country's major food service companies are talking about energy efficiency, waste reduction and, now, how to reduce carbon emissions associated with the food they serve.

Changing the meaning of "carb" in "low-carb" has been kicking around for years. Those who preach eating local, such as the locavores, have hogged much of the attention with a focus on "food miles," the distance that food travels from farm to fork. Food science has begun to look beyond transportation, to the smorgasbord of contributors to carbon dioxide and other gases with even greater atmospheric warming potential, such as methane.

Researchers tally emissions related to each of hundreds of steps in the life cycle of various foods, from the energy-intensive process of manufacturing fertilizer for crops to the leftovers scraped from plates that end up rotting in a landfill, burping methane. As they perfect these life-cycle assessments, scientists are ready to answer the question raised by a cartoon-book character in a Roy Lichtenstein-inspired poster outside the university cafe: "Is my cheeseburger causing global warming?" It was a sparkling spring day at the Getty Center in the Brentwood hills. Instead of heading into the sunshine for their lunch break, museum staffers filed into a darkened auditorium to hear a lecture: "Play With Your Food."

The crowd appeared to be a thoughtful bunch, many of them foodies, and more receptive than a famished football player to weighing the environmental and social consequences of their food choices. Helene York took the stage with her PowerPoint slides, fulfilling the directive of Fedele Bauccio, Bon Appetit's blunt-talking chief executive: "Customers make choices for us. We need to educate them."

York, who directs the Low Carbon Diet initiative, explains that the diet is to slim down the company's greenhouse gas emissions by 25%, beginning by changing the 80 million meals it serves a year.

"That sounds like a lot," she said. Yet it's nothing compared with what can happen if Bon Appetit persuades its parent company, Compass Group, to follow suit, as it did with the switch to sustainably caught seafood. Compass Group is the largest food-service company in North America, with 8,000 accounts including sports arenas, hospitals and Chicago's public schools. Other food service companies, such as Sodexo (Marriott), are also considering menu changes.
To start, Bon Appetit has targeted those items with the biggest impact. That means reducing the amount of beef and cheese.

"Inherently, beef and lamb are worse than every other form of animal protein," York said. The reason? These ruminants incessantly belch methane gas. She points out that methane has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Vegetarians think they get a free ride, she said. Yet if they nibble on a grilled cheese sandwich, they buy into the same industrialized system, which is fertilizer-intensive. Overuse of fertilizer releases nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, a gas that has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

"Does your sushi get more frequent-flier miles than you do?" another poster flashes on the screen. It draws a laugh from the audience -- until York explains that Bon Appetit is phasing out fresh seafood brought in by air freight.

About 80% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported, and nearly all of it takes to the skies. That means delicate slabs of fresh halibut and salmon carry a long contrail of aircraft exhaust to the table. Bon Appetit is setting up supply lines to buy Alaskan salmon fillets and other fish frozen at sea. York said top chefs swear that diners cannot tell the difference if fish is properly prepared. Bon Appetit, which long ago joined the buy-local movement, is slowly eliminating out-of-season produce flown from Chile and other Latin American countries and cutting by half its imported tropical fruit, such as bananas, pineapples and papayas.
It has also phased out imported bottled water, she said. No more San Pellegrino. No more Perrier.

"Voss water, what's that? It's water that comes in a fancy glass bottle from Norway, of all places," York said, revealing her Brooklyn accent. "Don't we have enough water here?"
York told the group that plastic packaging, despite its bad reputation, is only a minuscule part of the carbon footprint. So if it's a question of taking leftovers home in plastic containers or leaving the food to be thrown away, she said, take it home.

"The food with the highest carbon footprint is the food we don't eat," she said, explaining that 3% of America's energy use is tied up in food trucked to the dump. Although Americans are piling more food onto their plate than ever, studies show that not all of these extra calories are expanding waistlines. As much as 25% of those leftover peas and carrots and gristle ends up buried in the landfill. Deprived of oxygen, the mash of rotting food produces methane gas. Bon Appetit has begun to reverse the trend of super-sized meals. Burgers on many college campuses, for instance, have been downsized from one-third to quarter-pounders, with prices adjusted accordingly.

York, a Harvard- and Yale-educated MBA, is part carbon cop -- "I spent a lot of time beating up our suppliers" -- and part mom, reminding customers that their mother was right: You should eat more vegetables. You shouldn't waste food. She's also a food detective. She leads the company's effort to track the origins of Bon Appetit's food purchases to assess carbon emissions.
That's not always easy. She has found confounding things, such as San Joaquin Valley-grown tomatoes that get shipped to Massachusetts and back because of the peculiarities of the nation's food distribution system.

She isn't the only one who's frustrated. The Tesco supermarket chain in England wants to affix a carbon score to each item on its shelves but has been bogged down in the complexity of the task.

The U.S. Congress in 2002 took a step toward unmasking food supply lines by passing a law requiring meat and produce to carry a label revealing the country of origin. But under pressure from food suppliers and grocery chains, legislators have repeatedly postponed the law's implementation for all but seafood.

That leaves supermarket shoppers staring at well-stocked shelves from around the globe without any sure way to tell where the food is from. Bon Appetit has brought together a group of scientists to help consumers sort through the thicket with an online carbon calculator at http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/.

Later in the week, York is off to Redlands to train the Bon Appetit managers from various university campuses about today's national rollout of Low Carbon Diet day. The University of Redlands cafe is the test case. A poster invites students: "You've changed your light bulbs, now change your lunch. Find out how food choices affect climate change."

Source: LA Times