Author: Grist – the Latest from Grist

  • Walkshed dilemmas and the Nissan Leaf

    by David Roberts

    The wife and I recently made a fairly difficult decision about where to send our 6-year-old to school for first grade next year. We had the following dilemma: he tested into the gifted program at our neighborhood school, but he also tested into the highly gifted program, which is run at a school across town.

    Our neighborhood school is quite nice, and to boot, once he’s old enough he could easily walk or bike there. It would be nice to have easy access to after-school events, volunteer opportunities, etc. And on a philosophical level, we both believe it’s worthwhile to support schools, businesses, etc. in your own walkshed.

    However! At the highly gifted program across town, he would be learning two grade levels ahead of his peers. He would be surrounded by smart kids and free of the stigma that occasionally comes from being bookish and intelligent. All the parents at the school are highly involved and philosophically simpatico. And (embarrassing to say, but real) he’d be on a track to get into better high schools and eventually better colleges, which would be helpful since he’s going to be president some day. Or a Nobel-winning scientist. His choice.

    However! The highly gifted program is at a school that’s waaay across town. He’d probably be on the bus an hour both ways. That’s two hours on a bus every day … ugh. We could drive him (or carpool) some days, but it would be fairly inconvenient. And then there’s getting there for after-school events, meetings, extra-curricular activities, PTA meetings … ugh again.

    Anyway! Ultimately we decided to send him across town. And when we decided that, we started thinking, “Hm, we don’t want to make that trip over and over again in our big ol’ minivan. Maybe it’s time to buy a smaller, fuel-efficient car. Wonder how much that fully electric Nissan Leaf is gonna cost …”

    Nissan Leaf fully electric car

    Happily for us, Nissan has just announced Leaf pricing, and it’s lower than generally expected. Including all federal tax credits, the base Leaf model will run about $26,000 (less than a Prius). If you live in California or Georgia (wha?), you can get an additional $5,000 credit, which brings the total almost down to $20K. The 220-volt home charging station runs $2,200, which includes installation, though it looks like we can get one for free as part of a federal incentive program along the I-5 corridor. Lots more on the ins and outs of the Leaf and its pricing can be found at Autopia and AutoBlogGreen.

    I run through all this not just to air out my private dilemmas, but as a kind of illustration of how decisions about sustainability and mobility are made “in the field.” Yes, the carbon footprint of our commute is a big factor for us. So is the general principle that building up and supporting your own neighborhood/community is important. But those are not the only considerations. They never are.

    Anyway: given that we’re sending our child on an atmosphere-destroying trip across town every day … should we buy a Leaf?

    Related Links:

    Ask Umbra on eyewear, faux eco efforts, and Easter baskets

    Three trends that favor electric bikes

    Streetfilms: Fixing the car-centric city






  • Say it loud: I’m childfree and I’m proud

    by Lisa Hymas

    In 1969, graduating college senior Stephanie Mills made
    national headlines with a commencement address exclaiming that, in the face of
    impending ecological devastation, she was choosing to forgo parenthood.  “I am terribly saddened by the fact that the most humane thing for me to do is to have
    no children at all,” she told her classmates.

    I come here before you today to make the same proclamationwith a twist. I am thoroughly delighted by the fact that the most humane thing for me to do is to have no children at
    all. 

    Making the green choice too often feels like a sacrifice or
    a hassle or an expense.  In this
    case, it feels like a luxurious indulgence that just so happens to cost a lot less for me and weigh
    a lot less
    on the carbon-bloated atmosphere. 

    I call myself a GINK: green inclinations, no kids.

    First, a word for you parents

    Let me get this out of the way up front: I like kidsmany
    of them, anyway.  Some of my best
    friends, as they say, are parents. 
    I bear no ill will to procreators, past, present, and prospective.  I claim no moral or ethical high
    ground.

    If being a parent is something you’ve longed and planned
    for, or already embarked upon, I respect your choice and I wish you luck.  Go forth and raise happy, healthy
    kids.  May they bring you joy and
    fulfillment, and may they become productive members of society who faithfully
    pay their Social Security taxes.   

    Of course, you parents and parent wannabes don’t need my
    encouragementour society supports your decision overwhelmingly.  OK, yes, the U.S. lacks paid family
    leave and universal childcare, not to mention many basic rights for same-sex
    couples with childrenand we should remedy these shortcomings.  But from the tax breaks to the
    discounted airline seats, from the eager grandparents urging you on to the friends,
    cousins, and complete strangers who ask when the first or next kid is coming, from
    the “What to Expect …” empire to the proliferating mommy and daddy
    blogs, our culture constantly affirms your choicein many ways, almost
    demands it.  And, no small matter,
    our biology does too. 

    So this post isn’t for you.  It’s for the childfree and childfree-curious, who don’t get a lot of encouragement in our society.  Parents, keep reading if you like, but
    you have to promise not to tell the rest of us that we’d feel differently if we
    just had our own! 

    OK, down to business

    Here’s the dirty little secret that we’re never supposed to
    say in mixed company: There are a lot of perks to childfree living, not to
    mention a lot of green good that comes from bringing fewer beings onto a
    polluted and crowded planet.

    Yes, as a childfree person, I’ll miss out on a lot: The
    miracle of childbirth (though, truth be told, I don’t feel so bad about
    skipping that one).  The
    hilariously perceptive things that only kids say.  A respectable excuse for rereading the Harry Potter
    series.  The hope that my kid will
    be smarter and cooler and better looking than I ever was.  More boisterous holiday
    celebrations.  Someone to carry on
    the family name (assuming I won the arm-wrestling match with my partner over
    whose name the kid would actually get).  Maybe even the satisfaction of helping a child grow into a
    well-educated, well-adjusted adult, and the peace of mind of knowing there’s
    someone to take care of me in my old age. 

    But parents miss out on a lot too (as some will be the first
    to tell you): Time and emotional energy to invest in friendships and a romantic
    partnership.  Space to focus on a
    career or education or avocation. 
    Uninterrupted “grown-up” conversations.  Travel that’s truly impulsive or
    leisurely or adventurous (and never involves zoos).  Unpremeditated Saturday nights on the town and Sunday
    brunches out.  Opportunities for
    political or community engagement. 
    Stretches of quiet for reading or writing or relaxing.  A non-child-proofed, non-toy-strewn,
    non-goldfish-cracker-crumb-riddled home. 
    Eight peaceful, uninterrupted hours of sleep a night.  All without any guilt that one should
    be spending more quality time with the kid. 

    A childfree life also means a lot more financial
    freedom.  How expensive are
    kids?  Try $291,570 for a child
    born in 2008 to parents bringing home between
    $57,000 and $98,000 a year, according to figures from the USDA. 
    That’s for the first 18 years, so it doesn’t include college.  If you make more, you’re likely to spend more.  Couples bringing in upwards of $98,000
    a year can expect to spend an average of $483,750 on a child’s first 18
    years.  (Dig into the
    numbers yourself
    [PDF] for all the caveats and conditions.)

    Opting out of childrearing might leave you richer in
    happiness too, as Harvard psychology professor and happiness expert Daniel
    Gilbert recently told NPR:

    [I]t probably is true that without
    children, your marriage might be happier in the sense that you would report
    more daily satisfaction.  People
    are surprised to find this, because they value and love their children above
    all things.  How can my children
    not be a source of great happiness?

    Well, one reason is that although
    children are a source of happiness, they tend to crowd out other sources of
    happiness.  So people who have a
    first child often find in the first year or two that they’re not doing many of
    the other things that used to make them happy.  They don’t go to the movies or the theater.  They don’t go out with their
    friends.  They don’t make love with
    their spouse.

    In his 2006 book Stumbling
    on Happiness
    , Gilbert offers more on
    this topic:

    Careful studies of how women feel
    as they go about their daily activities show that they are less happy when
    taking care of their children than when eating, exercising, shopping, napping,
    or watching television.  Indeed
    looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing
    housework.

    None of this should surprise
    us.  Every parent knows that
    children are a lot of work—a lot of really hard work—and although parenting has many rewarding
    moments, the vast majority of its moments involve dull and selfless service to
    people who will take decades to become even begrudgingly grateful for what we
    are doing. 

    Even firebrand valedictorian Stephanie Mills, who initially
    considered her decision not to have children a sacrifice, now writes:

    … it proved to be a good personal
    choice. I am cussedly independent and I love my solitude and freedom. … Other
    women, I know, have been able to combine demanding vocations with
    motherhood.  Given my particular
    nature, the responsibility and distraction of childrearing most likely would
    have prevented me from pursuing my work as a writer, which has been immensely
    rewarding …

    Which isn’t to say she never wonders about her
    decision: 

    Now that I’m old enough to be a
    grandmother, I sometimes wish that I had a granddaughter to commune with, but I
    am friends with some spectacular young people and can learn from them as well
    as pass along whatever wisdom I’ve developed.  That will have to do.

    Ultimately, as Mills suggests, life is a series of
    tradeoffs.  By choosing not to have
    kids, some doors are closed to you, but others are openand they don’t have
    sticky doorknobs. 

    The green angle

    Beyond the undisturbed sleep and the gleaming doorknobs, consider the environmental benefits to the childfree life. 

    We’re on track to hit a global population of 7 billion
    people next
    year
    or the year
    after
    3 billion more than when Mills got all riled up four decades
    ago.  We’ve spewed enough
    greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to push it past the safe point, which many
    climate scientists agree is 350
    parts carbon dioxide per million
    ; we’re already at about 390 and rising
    fast.  And Americans are among the
    most carbon-intensive people on earth. 
    The average American generates about 66 times more CO2 each year than
    the average Bangladeshi20
    tons versus 0.3 tons
    .

    If you consider not just the carbon impact of your own kids
    but of your kids’ kids and so on, the numbers get even starker.  According to a 2009 study
    in Global Environmental Change
    [PDF] that took into account the
    long-term impact of Americans’ descendants, each child adds an estimated 9,441
    metric tons of CO2 to a parent’s carbon legacythat’s about 5.7 times his or her direct lifetime emissions.

    “Many people are unaware of the power of exponential
    population growth,” said
    study coauthor Paul Murtaugh
    , a professor of statistics at Oregon State
    University.  “Future growth
    amplifies the consequences of people’s reproductive choices today, the same way
    that compound interest amplifies a bank balance.”  (To take an extreme example,
    compare childfree me with Yitta Schwartz of Monroe, N.Y., who died this year at
    the age of 93, leaving
    behind an estimated 2,000 descendants
    .) 

    A person who cares about preserving a livable environment
    has lots of options for doing her bit, and you’ve heard all about them: live in
    an energy-efficient home in a walkable neighborhood; bike or walk or take
    public transit when possible; drive an efficient car if you drive one at all;
    fly less; go veg; buy organic and local; limit purchases of consumer goods;
    switch to CFLs or LEDs; slay your vampires;
    offset carbon emissions; vote for climate-concerned candidates, and hold them
    accountable for their campaign promises.

    But even in aggregate, all of these moves don’t
    come close
    to the impact of not bringing new human beingsparticularly
    new Americansinto the world. 

    Here’s a simple truth: 
    For an average person like mesomeone who doesn’t have the ability of
    an Al Gore to reach millions, or of a Nancy Pelosi to advance (if not actually
    enact) landmark environmental legislation, or of a Van
    Jones
    to inspire (and piss off) whole new audiencesthe single most
    meaningful contribution I can make to a cleaner, greener world is to not have children.

    Just say it

    Why does it
    feel almost audacious to articulate all of this? 

    Those of us who are childfree by choice are in the minority,
    but if you judged by the public discourse about our lifestyle, you’d think we
    were practically nonexistent. 

    Parents talk all the time about the delights and challenges
    of raising kids, to other parents and to all the rest of us, and I don’t begrudge
    them that. 

    We childfree people rarely discuss in public the upsides and
    downsides of life without kidsand that’s what needs to change. 

    If you’re intentionally childfree, how many times have you
    been asked, “So, when are you going to have children?” and mumbled a
    less-than-candid reply: “Oh, I’m not sure,” or “Well, it just
    might not happen for us,” or “Maybe someday …” when what you
    really mean is “Never.”

    Childfree people tread too gingerly around parents, as
    though we might wound their feelings if we told the truth about why we’ve made
    different decisions than they have.  But we insult them by thinking they’re so
    fragile or insecure about their family choicesand we shortchange ourselves
    and society at large by not speaking openly about the legitimate choice to not
    have a child. 

    What would happen if you answered the kid question
    honestly?  “No, I’m happy with
    my life as is,” or “A child doesn’t fit into our life plans,” or
    “Kids aren’t really my thing,” or “I think there are plenty of
    people on the planet already.” 

    If we said what we really think, I suspect we would actually
    find a lot of kindred or at least sympathetic spirits out there, GINKs and
    otherwise.  We might have some
    refreshingly frank and gratifying conversations with the parents in our
    lives.  And we could give those who
    are undecided about parenthood the understanding that the choice to be
    childfree is completely valid, and not completely lonely.

    Little bundles of (j)oy aren’t for everyoneand it’s time
    we said so out loud. 

    Related Links:

    Population growth should be curbed, argues Jane Goodall

    New York City gets big reaction to new sex symbol

    Data highlights on the global food supply






  • Lindsey ‘Green Economy’ Graham bashes the Clean Air Act

    by Brad Johnson

    Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is leading the bipartisan effort with
    Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to craft comprehensive climate legislation that
    can overcome a Senate filibuster. “The green economy is coming,”
    Graham said when he announced the partnership with Kerry and Sen. Joe
    Lieberman (I-Conn.) last November, explaining that he was “convinced with
    my colleagues that controlling carbon pollution is good business.”
    However, Graham is also co-sponsoring the effort by Sen. Lisa Murkowski
    (R-Ark.) to reverse the scientific finding by the Environmental Protection Agency that global warming pollution
    endangers public health and welfare. Speaking to business and
    environmental leaders Monday in Columbia, S.C., Graham declared that he
    wants “to stop the EPA from regulating carbon,” which would be “a disaster for every state:”

    This administration is not going to back off. They are going to regulate carbon. If Congress doesn’t get involved, it’s going to be a disaster for this state and it’s going to be a disaster for every state.

    He continued:

    The Supreme Court has allowed the regulation of carbon through the Clean Air Act. The question is, is
    Congress going to be smart enough to stop it? I want to stop the EPA
    from regulating carbon and allow elected officials to come up with a
    statutory scheme
    that not only cleans up the air, it creates
    jobs instead of losing jobs and gets this country on the path to energy
    independence.

    Graham’s assertion that Clean Air Act regulation of global warming
    pollution would be a disaster is baseless. The Clean Air Act has been
    such a successful piece of legislation that the coal industry front
    group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the oil-funded think tank American Enterprise Institute tout its track record of cleaning up our air while keeping our economy
    strong. The myth that environmental protection and economic growth are
    incompatible has been repeatedly debunked, in theory and practice. A healthy economy thrives on a strong framework of rules.

    The Clean Air Act global warming rules for mobile sources—the
    joint EPA-Department of Transportation greenhouse gas tailpipe
    standards—have been embraced by environmentalists and the auto industry alike,
    after years of litigation and astroturf campaigns claiming that such
    regulation would destroy Detroit. It was the decay of regulation that
    brought the American auto industry to its knees: the lack of competitive
    standards for domestic carmakers and the lack of financial regulation
    that allowed Wall Street to blow up the American economy.

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has acceded to the unfounded attacks on the Clean Air Act by delaying and weakening rules for stationary greenhouse sources that were first proposed by the EPA
    under the Bush administration, even as politicians promote a fear
    campaign that “churches, schools, restaurants, and even large homes
    could fall under new federal regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse
    gases.”

    The traditional tools of the Clean Air Act must be complemented by a
    comprehensive redirection of national energy policy if we are to
    confront the increasing disaster of climate change. But the idea that
    Congress should pass climate legislation to prevent the specter of the
    mean nasty EPA Carbon Cops—as Koch Industries’ Americans for Prosperity is selling in Arkansas right now—is, quite simply, toxic.

    Related Links:

    Obama Ends 150-Year War of Strip-Mining in 24 States!

    Senate climate bill to fund Utah tar sands development

    Conservativeclimate.org lauds Reagan as climate hero






  • The EPA weighs the hidden costs of carbon

    by Michael A. Livermore

    This week, the
    Environmental Protection Agency will do more than set new fuel efficiency
    standards for cars. It will put a price on carbon.

    Within this historic
    climate change regulation is a powerful new way of thinking about greenhouse gas
    emissions: as costs that will borne by society. Burning oil in cars imposes a
    steep price tag, from dirtier air now, to more expensive flood insurance in a
    decade, to potential climate catastrophe for our grandchildren.

    The federal
    government has taken note of these hidden costs and is now using them to weigh
    the benefits of curbing our emissions. It’s a smart move: regulations might not
    seem worth doing if we pretend these price tags said “free.” But when the real
    costs of business as usual are recognized, the need to rein-in emissions is
    obvious.

    EPA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards
    are a big, green deal in and of themselves. These standards embody common sense
    greenhouse gas reductions and, as we can tell from Detroit’s recent meltdown,
    should have been done a long time ago. The new standards will save consumers
    billions at the pump, wean us off OPEC’s pipelines and drive technology
    innovations here in America.

    And of course it
    will help to slow down our contributions to the greenhouse gases that are
    warming our planet. Using the new carbon price, EPA estimates that the rule will
    save $16.4 billion in climate costs down the line.

    While Members of
    Congress work towards a legislative path for a larger carbon pricing plan, EPA’s
    recognition of the costs of carbon emissions is a strong and important move. For
    almost a century our nation has ignored the ways greenhouse gases have adversely
    affected our long-term bottom line. We focus only on the price of a gallon at
    the pump and close our eyes to the price of we are imposing both on ourselves
    and our children.

    So kudos to EPA
    Administrator Lisa Jackson for killing two carbon emitting birds with one stone.
    With these new and improved CAFE standards, we save money with more miles per
    gallon and take an important step toward a saner energy
    economy.

    Related Links:

    The Climate Post: Once more unto the breach, dear friends

    Coalfield protesters want to know when EPA chief will visit Appalachia

    Lisa Jackson’s Reaction To Mountaintop Removal Activist Lock Down At EPA






  • In a D.C. school, the simple power of a good breakfast

    by Ed Bruske

    This is the first of three articles on how food made from scratch
    using local ingredients is served to the students and staff at
    Washington Jesuit Academy, a free-tuition private school for at-risk kids.

    Duane Drake, head chef at Washington Jesuit Academy. Chef Duane Drake lines a dozen pie shells on sheet pans and begins filling them for breakfast quiche. First, he scatters freshly torn spinach leaves at the bottom of the shells. Then he begins cutting blocks of Muenster cheese into cubes. He works quickly. “This morning, I’m speedballing,” he explains. Two of his assistants have been out sick. He’s behind with the prep work.

    In the walk-in refrigerator, Drake locates a large plastic tub filled with an egg, milk and pesto mixture he made the night before. He begins pouring it into the pie shells and checks the clock: He has only a few minutes to get the quiches into the kitchen’s convection oven and finish baking them before students arrive at 7:30 for breakfast at Washington Jesuit Academy.

    Wait a second. Can that be right? Handmade quiche for school breakfast?

    Yes, you heard correctly. At this all-boys middle school in Northeast Washington, D.C., all of the meals are made from scratch every day. Not only are the ingredients fresh, most of them are locally grown as well. The eggs and milk, for instance, are from Trickling Springs Creamery in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. The basil and other micro-greens on the menu hail from southern New Jersey. The Muenster cheese is made by Amish Delight in Louisville, Ohio.

    When the quiche goes into the oven, Drake will start on lunch: a pasta sauce made with roasted local chicken, hot house plum tomatoes from farms in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, eggplant and other vegetables from a produce auction in Dayton, Virginia. It’s all the brainchild of D.C. Central Kitchen, a social service agency perhaps best known for providing daily meals to thousands of the District of Columbia’s  homeless and needy, but now flexing its know-how and local food connections through its own for-profit catering company, Fresh Start, which runs the kitchen at Washington Jesuit Academy. Drake and his crew also are responsible for feeding children and staff at a nearby child-care center, as well as some 18 students in a post-high school training program across town and other catering jobs that come in over the transom. A fleet of D.C. Central Kitchen trucks keeps the food moving.

    Washington Jesuit Academy is a “tuition-free middle school offering quality education to disadvantaged boys in the 6th, 7th & 8th grades,” according to its website. The students, Drake’s clients,  are 71 “at risk” boys who spend 12 hours each day in the school’s intensive educational program and eat breakfast, lunch and dinner at school. They love the quiche, served on the food line only minutes after it comes out of the oven, warm and fragrant. “It’s very cheesy,” comments one smiling 12-year-old between forkfulls.

    After I wrote a series of articles about the woeful state of cafeteria food at my daughter’s elementary school here in the District—most of it highly processed meal components cooked in distant factories and shipped frozen to D.C. schools—I received a number of tips about schools that were taking a different approach, trying to serve students meals more resembling real food and not junk. I decided to see for myself how a stronger commitment to school food—from individual kitchen workers, food companies and school administrators—could result in better food on children’s plates, and how much that might cost.

    All the best ingredients in the world won’t fix school food if there aren’t skilled and committed cooks in the kitchen. At Washington Jesuit Academy, I learned that D.C. Central Kitchen’s social activism has left a definite imprint on personnel. Duane Drake and two of the assistant cooks I met there last week are all ex-offenders who completed a 13-week culinary training course at D.C. Central after their release from prison.

    Drake, for instance, spent his last seven-year hitch in the joint on a charge of “assault with intent to maim” after he used the “boot” off a car steering wheel to attack a marine who’d been “messing” with his girlfriend. Eraleigh Green, who was tossing hard-boiled eggs with green onions and pickle relish for egg salad sandwiches when I met him, spent five years in prison for heroin distribution. And Derek Nelson, who usually arrives later in the day, scrubs pots and manages the dinner services, is a former drug addict convicted of selling crack cocaine.

    The fourth member of the crew who was out sick, Makeisha Day, enrolled in the D.C. Central training program after she lost her job and was evicted from her apartment.

    Commanding the kitchen—devising menus, ordering ingredients—is Drake, who manages meal service with a constant wariness and fretting over details. “I guess you’d call me a worry-wart,” says Drake. Eraleigh Green, who works under Drake, but still acts as a kind of mentor to the younger chef, has a different take on his boss: “He’s a workaholic.”

    Or perhaps Drake is still trying to measure up to his father, a career military officer—first Army, then Marines. “I was a ‘B’ student,” says Drake, “but my dad wanted me to get straight ‘A’s.” His father also frowned on Drake’s eating habits.

    After his parents split, Drake divided time between his mother on the Outer Banks of North Carolina and his father and step-mother here in D.C. Drake always hated vegetables—still does—and managed to get fat on his mother’s cooking. “I was an obese kid,” he says. His stepmother, meanwhile, could never cook, he says. “She served us chicken that was still red inside.” So he and his brother would smuggle McDonald’s meals into their bedroom in the basement and stash it behind the ceiling tiles. “We’d live for days off that, as long as we didn’t get caught.”

    Drake worked odd jobs in restaurants from an early age and learned cooking and especially baking in prison. During his last prison term, he landed a plum assignment as head baker and a frequent banquet chef. He worked overtime to shorten his sentence. He also earned an associate degree in business, he said. But when he moved to Washington, McDonald’s wouldn’t hire him. “They said I was overqualified.” That’s when he enrolled at D.C. Central Kitchen.

    Drake still can’t seem to work enough hours. Sometimes he leaves his apartment before dawn, before the buses start running, and walks three and half miles to work. “I’m so tired when I get home at night, I don’t even watch TV.” Last September, Drake collapsed in his office from exhaustion and anxiety and was rushed to nearby Providence Hospital. But the next morning, after being dosed with morphine, he crawled out of his hospital bed and snuck back to work, still wearing his hospital gown and with a trash bag wrapped around the catheter in his arm. He was determined to continue working—until police showed up at school to take him back to the hospital.

    “I don’t ever want to be without a job again,” Drake explained. “I don’t want to be homeless, or on the streets.”

    He makes wonderful soups: a thick chowder with corn harvested last summer in Virginia and frozen at the D.C. Central Kitchen facilities, cooked with milk, butter and cream from Trickling Springs. He makes a fish soup with fresh salmon and tilapia. The fish comes from a local distributor—ProFish. Occasionally, the Academy’s student “social club,” which sometimes helps in the kitchen and raises money for the homeless with bake sales, convenes for cooking lessons. One day the lesson was given by a ProFish employee who showed them how to “fabricate”—or break down—a whole salmon. “I like to buy salmon with the head on,” said Drake.

    He loves ordering specialty produce from local vendors. “I spent $500 for collard greens and tomatoes one time. It was so beautiful; I took pictures of it with my cell phone and sent them to my boss. She was, like, ‘What did you buy?’ “

    But Drake knows that kids don’t necessarily like vegetables, especially vegetables they aren’t familiar with. He encourages me to taste the spaghetti sauce he’s cooking in the kitchen’s big, free-standing kettle. “Can you taste the eggplant in there?” No, I say, I didn’t notice. “That’s how I get them to eat certain vegetables. I disguise it.”

    Some things the boys just won’t eat at all. “We’ve tried turnips many different ways. Then somebody told them it was turnip. If they know what it is, they won’t eat it.” One day Drake served venison lasagna. The kids, he said, loved it. “But later, when they found out what it was, they said, ‘You fed us Bambi! You’re cruel.’ “

    Even though he doesn’t care for vegetables himself, Drake says he encourages the boys to eat a variety of them, even to the point of eating a bowl of black-eyed peas himself after losing a Super Bowl bet with the students. Drake picked the Indianapolis Colts. “We cooked a kettle of black-eyed peas. I ate a bowl and it killed me.”

    After his breakdown last year, Drake cemented his reputation with Fresh Start Catering as a kitchen warrior by cooking an entire Thanksgiving feast for the school, its sponsors and parents by himself: 28 turkeys with cornbread and cranberry stuffing, 200 pounds of mashed potatoes, 150 pounds of string beans, snow peas and roasted cherry tomatoes, 98 pies (sweet potato, pumpkin, apple) and dinner rolls. In fact, the morning I met him, he apologized for the pie crusts he was using for the quiche. “They’re from Sysco,” he lamented. “I usually make them myself.”

    He always answers questions, “Yes, sir!” and “No, sir!”

    “The guys in the kitchen actually take pride in what they do, which makes a difference,” said instructor John Scheibel, who teaches reading and social studies.

     “The boys look up to (Duane) and love to help in any way they can,” said the school’s headmaster, Joseph Powers. “Duane helps them prepare meals that go out into the community. He has taught them many kitchen skills, but most importantly, he has been a role model for them.”

    Drake seems to delight in exchanging banter with the boys. I watch him as he stands at the food line, enforcing the school’s “No Seconds” rule, put in place to control portion sizes. The boys are not supposed to stuff themselves. But they are allowed unlimited fruit and salad.

    “Didn’t I see you here earlier?” he says to one of the boys who seems to be late getting his dinner.

    “Unh-unh,” replies the boy. “This is my first time.”

    “I could swear you were here earlier,” Drake presses.

    “No, sir! This is the first time, I swear!” the boy insists.

    “One of these kids asked me why would I work so hard here and not make much money,” said Drake. “It’s about more than that. These boys are my brothers. I tell them, with the education you’re getting here, you can do anything.”

    Drake goes back to his office, looks into his computer and starts worrying again. Two new catering jobs from Fresh Start that he’ll be responsible for have popped onto his screen.  He’s still short one cook. “This is going to be tight,” he says, shaking his head. “This is going to be very tight.”

    Tomorrow: Lunch, and how a catering company’s commitment to better school food results in an exquisite salad bar

    Related Links:

    In praise of the sandwich-shop trend

    The NYT highlights a key food-system gap: infrastucture

    Ask Umbra on eyewear, faux eco efforts, and Easter baskets






  • Koch Industries funds climate change deniers, Greenpeace reports

    by Agence France-Presse

    WASHINGTON – Koch Industries, a huge privately owned U.S. company dominated by oil and chemical interests, is plowing millions of dollars into campaigns to discredit climate science and clean energy policies, a report alleged Tuesday.

    Between 2005 and 2008, the Kansas-based conglomerate that “most Americans have never heard of” spent nearly $25 million to fund “organizations of the ‘climate denial machine,’” environmental group Greenpeace said in the report.

    Between 2006 and 2009, Koch Industries and the family that founded and still controls the conglomerate spent $37.9 million on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues—eclipsed only by oil majors Exxon and Chevron, who spent $87.8 million and $50 million, respectively, the report said.

    “Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming,” the report says.

    Greenpeace published a list of 35 organizations and 21 lawmakers who have directly or indirectly received funds from Koch Industries, the company’s affiliates, or foundations set up by the Koch family. They include conservative think tank the Cato Institute, which got more than one million dollars in grant money from Koch; and grassroots group Americans for Prosperity, which is campaigning to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. That group got over $5 million.

    Koch has also contributed to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000 from the company.

    A foundation set up by Charles Koch, who with his brother controls the U.S. conglomerate, partly funded a report published in 2007 that said polar bears were not endangered by climate change, the report said.

    And at least 20 Koch-funded organizations have repeatedly broadcast and referenced the “Climategate” scandal, in which emails were leaked from climate scientists at University of East Anglia in Britain.

    “The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political-action-campaign donations, and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the U.S.,” Greenpeace said.

    Representatives of Koch, meanwhile, were audibly surprised to learn about the report and its allegations from AFP, and a spokeswoman for the company defended Koch’s track record on environmental issues. “Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products,” said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, Koch director of communication.

    “Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy,” said the statement, which was sent to AFP before Koch Industries had seen the report.

    Koch Industries, the family, and foundations bearing the name “support economic freedom and market-based policy solutions,” the statement added. “These efforts are all about creating more opportunity and prosperity for all, as it’s a historical fact that economic freedom best fosters innovation, environmental protection, and improved quality of life in a society.”

    Related Links:

    Senate climate bill to fund Utah tar sands development

    What to make of the Pollan/Schlosser agreement with Wendy’s?

    Scrounging for a green angle to the Large Hadron Collider experiment






  • ‘Britain’s Appalachia’ engineers a brighter post-coal future

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Can renewable energy turn Wales as clean and shiny as the Cardiff waterfront?Courtesy ttfnrob via FlickrThe sparkling, sanitized waterfront of Cardiff, Wales, reveals barely a hint of the country’s grimy industrial past. Where one of the busiest ports anywhere once shipped Welsh coal out into the world, a complex of upscale shops, pubs, and restaurants now dominates the area. Out are the sailors, brothels, and seedy watering holes. In are tourist-friendly pubs, fusion restaurants with names like ffresh, and a circus carousel. The locally favored Brains brewery (“People who know beer have Brains”) has survived nearby.

    Even the bay itself has been remade. The natural tidal mudflats along the shore were too unseemly and smelly, developers figured, to attract new money. So authorities built a 0.7-mile dam to create a permanent artificial lake, tidal ecosystem be damned.

    The only clear reminder of the country’s industrial heyday is the Pierhead Building, a red gothic-revival landmark that once headquartered a powerful shipping company. The first million-pound check was signed nearby and stored in the Pierhead a hundred years ago, according to national lore. After decades of going largely unused, the building was reopened this month as a museum, gallery, and civic forum.

    The decline and tentative rebirth of the Pierhead is a telling stand-in for the story of Wales itself. A country of 2.9 million people, part of the United Kingdom, Wales was one of the first places to rise in the industrial revolution. Then it was one of the first to see its fossil fuel–based economy bottom out. Over the last decade, its government has invested heavily in clean-energy technologies, trying to cultivate a job base built on innovation rather than on mining and burning its natural resources.

    I spent four days visiting Welsh companies and research hubs this month, on a trip funded by International Business Wales, a business-promotion arm of the government. The agency gave a biased perspective, of course, but one that revealed a lot about what Welsh leaders would like to achieve.

    But I didn’t go because I was interested in Wales, no disrespect. I went to learn about the future of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, and other coal-dependent parts of the United States. Because those regions are following the same coal-driven trajectory as Wales. They just haven’t hit the rough patch yet.

    You can look at Wales as the Appalachia of the U.K.—rural, hilly, beautiful, and, for much of the past two centuries, economically dependent on digging up and selling a fossil fuel. The key difference is that Wales built up its mining industry sooner, and saw it collapse sooner. But laws of economics promise the real Appalachia is following the same path.

    Here’s why: Coal is a finite resource. It’s running out. Not only that, it’s also getting harder and harder to reach. The Hubbert Peak model shows how this happens—here’s Grist’s David Roberts explaining:

    The easiest reserves are found first. Over time, as more accessible seams are mined out, what remains is increasingly difficult to obtain and expensive to transport. In every coal field, every country, every region, the energy-return-on-investment (EROI) rises, peaks, and declines. Post-peak, it takes more and more energy to reach the coal and get it where it needs to go. The crucial issue is not how much coal is left in the ground but where we are on the curve, and more to the point, when we cross into negative EROI, the crucial line after which it takes more work to get coal out of the ground than coal returns in energy.

    This graphic from the Energy Watch Group shows how Europe’s coal production (in lime green) peaked late last century, then shrunk to barely a sliver. North American production (in peach) is expected to level out over the next 30 years, then start its decline. Same trend, just a few decades later.

    Peak and crash

    To see how this plays out, it’s worth looking at the recent history of Wales. For much of the past two centuries, its coal-rich southern valleys formed the country’s economic backbone. English finance and technology helped build the mining industry, which in turn drove the shipping trade in Cardiff. Iron and steelmaking, which relied on abundant coal, were the next industries to rise.

    But most Welsh coal is deep underground, often requiring miners to travel a thousand feet down to retrieve it. As Australia and nations in Asia and Eastern Europe began extracting coal that was closer to the surface and easier to collect, Welsh mines struggled to compete. The mountaintop-removal method dominant in Appalachia is even cheaper—blast open the mountain and there’s much less digging to do.

    The decisive blow to the coal economy came from the miners’ strike that consumed Great Britain in the mid-1980s. Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government prevailed (despite the efforts of Billy Elliott), crushing organized labor all over Britain. Thatcher’s victory brought an unintended environmental boon by sharply reducing the mining of coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels.

    E.U. aid zones (in dark red), 2007-2013Courtesy wbc-inco.netWelsh mining continues in isolated pockets, including a two-year-old open-pit mine that is located an astounding 36 meters from private homes. But it has mostly vanished, leaving the country in rough economic shape. Its GDP per capita ranks last among regions in the U.K. Unemployment in some former mining valleys reached 25 percent. Many parts of the country are poor enough to qualify for European Union development aid, which goes mostly goes to former Soviet bloc countries.

    “We’re treated as the Third World of the U.K.,” one resident complained to me.

    So it’s not hard to see why leaders want to emphasize new industries. And it’s not hard to see why they prefer knowledge jobs to extraction jobs.

    But wanting to become a cleantech hotspot isn’t unique. Any number of places—New England, the San Francisco Bay Area, Denmark, Shanghai—have the same goal. What matters is follow-through. And the Welsh follow-through is impressively wide-reaching.

    There is wind—25 farms generate 300 megawatts of energy, making use of open ridgelines and the coasts that border Wales on three sides. There is solar—several companies build panels, including Pure Wafer, which makes panels out of recycled silicon. Early-stage, experimental wave and tidal energy projects are planned for sites along the coast. A biomass plant produces electricity from waste wood (sawmill scraps, pallets, forest brush), and another set to open in 2011 would be the world’s largest.

    The country has also drawn on the expertise in its universities, forming a multi-school Low Carbon Research Institute and a series of business incubators to find ways to shuttle innovations from academic labs into the marketplace.

    Combined, it all adds up to … a promising start. The transition from dirty to clean energy hasn’t been easy, and 25 years after the collapse of the Welsh coal industry, its clean-energy sector looks more like a field of green shoots than a mature ecosystem.

    “There’s no short-term fix for transitioning your economy from a carbon-intensive manufacturing base into something else,” said Helen Donovan, a cleantech specialist with the Welsh government.

    Gordon James, director of Friends of the Earth Wales, offered a perspective from outside government. “We’ve got the ambition,” he said. “We’ve got the vision. They’re putting in place good policy, but they haven’t had much of an impact yet.”

    Green shoots

    Even in its early stages, the Welsh cleantech project offers lessons for what other mining regions can do to ease their transition away from coal. For one, Welsh leaders aren’t looking for quick fixes. They’re thinking long-term.

    This is most clear in marine energy—tidal and wave power—an uncertain but promising sector that is generally considered a few decades behind wind and solar. Tidal and wave technologies are in development in a few other locations around the world—including Scotland, Washington state’s Puget Sound, and New York City’s East River—but they are preliminary enough that Wales, with 1,317 miles of coastline, could become a leader in both.

    Tidal Energy Limited hopes to test this tidal system next February, Development Director Chris Williams says.Grist photo/Jonathan HiskesOne team of researchers hopes to dispatch a floating “wave dragon” that traps waves and redirects the water through turbines. The company Tidal Energy Limited plans to drop a triangular frame holding three 20-meter turbines onto the sea bed. A test deployment next year could reveal whether the project has real commercial potential. “We’re going to put it in the water for 12 months, prove it works, and then we’ve got something to shout about,” said Tidal Energy Development Director Chris Williams. “Then we can go to the banks. Then we can start looking at further leases and a wider business plan.”

    “We’re trying to pump-prime the industry,” said Helen Donovan, the government sustainable tech specialist. “If you look at the offshore-wind-energy and marine-energy situations, they’re very capital-intensive … By us sort of sharing the pain at the beginning, we’re actually pushing the industries forward over a period of time.”

    Wales is also looking beyond its borders for help building a clean-energy economy—a tactic other coal regions could embrace. That’s helped it overcome the limited size of the local financial market. The Australian company Dyesol runs an R&D lab in north Wales focusing on advanced solar technology. The Japanese company Sharp has a solar-photovoltaic panel factory in the north; most of the panels are exported, but the company also runs a local installation training program.

    Because Wales has multiple well-established universities, and because making the lab-to-marketplace leap is difficult almost everywhere, the country’s “bridge” projects could prove most consequential. Business incubators such Technium OpTIC provide lab and office space to promising startups, in energy and other high-tech fields, and help them find both government and private investment funding. Ninety percent of the companies it’s backed so far are still running, said OpTIC Sales Director John Oliver.

    There’s a similar approach at the Low Carbon Research Institute, which is spread among six universities and funded by $50 million from the government and an E.U. development grant. It’s headquartered at the Cardiff University School of Architecture, where the work focuses on energy efficiency for new buildings and figuring out the economics of retrofitting existing homes in the U.K. Another branch at Swansea University contributes research to marine projects.

    “The idea is to do serious, high-level academic work, but also, in a practical way, to move forward the low-carbon agenda,” institute director Peter Pearson said.

    The “low-carbon agenda” is Wales’ goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That’s more ambitious than the goals of the U.K., the E.U., and President Barack Obama. This aggressive target provides a clear impetus for the cleantech push—something else for coal-dependent regions to note.

    Still, Wales has a long way to go to meet its goals. Data [PDF] from 2007 reveal a small decline in greenhouse-gas emissions that year, but James of Friends of the Earth argues that this owes more to Wales exporting its manufacturing to developing countries than to significant progress at home. Sixteen percent of Wales’ power supply still comes from coal, and 49 percent from natural gas. Renewable sources provide only 4 percent, according to 2007 data [PDF].

    Two new power plants aren’t helping matters. The planned biomass plant and a liquefied-natural-gas plant that opened last year—the largest in Europe—will not capture and reuse waste heat, losing out on an opportunity for improved efficiency. “If we’re really serious about tackling climate change, we should not be granting permission to this,” said James. “It belongs to the past.”  But the fault for this lies with the U.K. government, which approved the plants. Welsh political leaders wanted cleaner plants but were overruled.

    Take a chance on me

    The National Assembly building in CardiffCourtesy mark.hogan via FlickrBack on the waterfront in Cardiff, there’s one more landmark worth mentioning. Beyond the shopping complex and carousel, the National Assembly building looks like a sort of hybrid mushroom/manta ray. The building is only four years old and the legislature it houses only 12 years old. In 1998, the U.K. parliament granted “devolution” rights to Wales and Scotland, allowing their national assemblies the ability to choose how they spend most public funds (though not to set tax rates).

    The Welsh Assembly now leads one of three countries in the world that has a sustainability mandate in its constitution (France and Ecuador are the others). Last year it launched a comprehensive One Wales: One Planet development plan that calls for fossil-fuel energy use to drop 80 percent by 2025. The plan also requires all new buildings to be carbon-neutral by 2011. Because it was formed after the coal industry’s strength had faded, the Assembly has never had to grapple with the kind of powerful coal lobby that operates in Washington and coal-state capitals.

    Throughout the trip, I kept asking “Why Wales?” For all the political leaders who talk a good game on driving the clean-energy transformation, why have theirs been able to follow through more than most? I got three general answers, two of which should be encouraging to the Appalachias of the world.

    First, Wales never made a voluntary decision to give up fossil-fuel extraction. It was simply forced to find a new economic base. Every other coal-mining region will eventually reach this point too (though perhaps not in time to save us from a radically reshaped climate). 

    Second, Wales’ energy legacy made its citizens receptive to more energy investment, much as Texans accustomed to oil wells have embraced wind farms. It’s a point of pride. “Wales had an important history in the industrial revolution, so it wants to take an important role in the clean-energy revolution,” James said. “Even though we’re a small nation, there’s good ambition here.”

    Finally, the political climate in Wales is, in a word, different.

    Kontakt theater at the Pierhead Sessions.Grist photo/Jonathan HiskesI stayed an extra day in Cardiff and ended up at a quirky festival marking the reopening of the Pierhead Building. A youth theater troupe had persuaded members of the Welsh Assembly and civic leaders to join them in a program designed to get politicians and teenagers interacting at a personal level. At a series of small tables, one student actor and one grownup spoke about their daily lives, interests, and families. Every few minutes they switched partners, sometimes drawing pictures together, at one point getting up to dance awkwardly to ABBA’s “Take a Chance on Me.” It was strange theater that looked like speed dating. The whole event seemed remarkable—I couldn’t imagine American lawmakers accepting such an invitation and taking the chance that they’d look foolish.

    After the day’s programs, which were open to the public and free, I watched Speaker of the Assembly Dafydd Elis-Thomas hold conversations with an intoxicated supporter, a filmmaker critical of the government’s environmental efforts, and a few others who wanted to talk politics.

    I was struck by the level of access citizens had, at least that day, to the presiding officer of their legislature. I don’t know how you replicate an open political culture like that, but it’s been instrumental in this country-wide rebuilding project. Other fossil fuel–dependent places may need to create the same atmosphere to find their own pathways out of the past.

    Related Links:

    Coal Industry Unveils Disturbing iPhone Application

    Obama Ends 150-Year War of Strip-Mining in 24 States!

    Scrounging for a green angle to the Large Hadron Collider experiment






  • ENERGY STAR ranked cities: Find your perfect match [slideshow]

    by Grist

    The Environmental Protection Agency just released a report ranking U.S. cities based on their number of ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings. These rankings make us, well, warm all over, so we decided to check out the sexiest top nine ENERGY STAR buildings of the bunch. Are you in search of the perfect match? Look no further than these sassy personal ads. Maybe we’ll all get lucky. 

     

    Los Angeles

    The Watt Plaza: The twin office towers encompass 900,000 sq. feet. L.A. dominated the list, for the second year in a row, with 293 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009 and $93.9 million in cost savings.

    L.A. twins seek a deep green relationship
    Hugh Hefner need not apply. We are 29-year-old twin office towers, all business and too old for him anyway.

    As the killer Watt twins, we have earned high ENERGY STAR accolades every year since 2004; we were the first L.A. office buildings to earn Gold LEED certification for existing structures in operations and maintenance. We’ve been fighting “fake Hollywood” stereotypes forever and don’t buy into empty greenwashing.

    Not that we are all work and no play. We boast water-free urinals and a waste program that diverts 70 percent of the building’s waste to a recovery facility. Yowza!

     

     

    Washington, D.C.

    204 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $62.3 million in cost savings.

    One Franklin Square: Built in 1989, the building encompasses almost 600,000 sq. feet. Photo: Wikipedia Commons

    One Franklin Square seeks one and only
    Tall (only the tallest commercial building in D.C.), bright, and handsome office type is looking for someone with whom I can enjoy my new lighting upgrades and on-peak energy load shedding program.

    No liberals please. I’m conservative with my kWh (I save over 1.7 million a year through lighting upgrades alone).

     

     

    San Francisco

    100 Pine: The 400,000 sq. feet building was built in 1972.173 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $69.4 million in cost savings.

    High achiever seeks business type
    This three-time San Francisco Recycler of the Year is sick of sorting through everyone else’s castoffs.

    I knew I had to change during California’s energy crisis in 2000, and got myself an environmental consultant who gave me $40,000 in light retrofits. Best money I ever spent. In only two years I saved over a million kWh, not to mention the $400,000 nest egg I saved in energy costs.

    Despite all I’ve made and saved, I’m still lonely. Any innovative, business types up for a LTR?

     

     

     

     

     

    Denver

    136 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $29.6 million in cost savings.

    The Wellington E. Webb Municipal building, built in 2002, spans 630,000 sq. feet. Photo: Wikipedia Commons

    Bureaucrat enjoys certification processes, seeks efficient tax payers
    I know I may sound a bit boring, but what I lack in personality, I make up with good looks and innovations!

    I was designed to be 25 percent more efficient than a conventional building, saving the city of Denver $218,000 in energy costs in 2003 alone.

    But there’s so much more to me than numbers. As a LEED Gold certified building, I have a broom closet full of impressive features:

    Low-energy compact fluorescent task lighting, occupancy sensors, and LED exit signs.  Instead of traditional air conditioning, I’m part of Xcel Energy’s district chilled water loop. And when it’s cold outside, steam-based hot water exchangers make my tenants toasty.

    Who wants to watch the savings add up with me?

     

     

    Chicago

    The Chicago Transit Authority office, built in 2004, spans 400,000 sq. feet.134 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $50.2 million in cost savings.

    Large-and-in-charge organizer seeks quick-mover
    Well, let’s see. I’m bossy. I’m the first stop to see on the tracks. I switched up the beat of the drum and was built with efficiency in mind.

    As the Chicago Transit Authority office, I can move you, of course. But with CFLs, a green roof, HVAC automated systems, and 89 percent of my office spaces receiving natural light, I’m downright irresistable. 

    I’m on the right track. What’s not to love?

     

     

     

     

    Houston

    This Houston skyline giant, built in 1983, spans 1.6 million sq. feet.Photo: Wikipedia Commons. 133 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $73.9 million in cost savings.

    Tall, southern stranger shines a light for love
    I’ve always been a bit of a romantic, towering above the other buildings, shining my iconic searchlight on Houston’s lovers.

    I earned my ENERGY STAR and LEED Gold certification thanks to a computerized building management system, lighting upgrades, and zone by zone cooling.

    In fact, my annual greenhouse gas reductions are the rough equivalent of removing 2,125 cars from the road. Hot!

    Have I won you over yet?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Dallas-Fort Worth

    The Chase Tower was built in 1987 and is 1.4 million sq. feet.Photo courtesy Majdan via Flickr113 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $33.7 million in cost savings.

    Bobby Ewing type seeks Pamela Barnes look alike
    I was born into the Dallas of the ‘80s. Luckily, I’ve always been more Bobby than J.R.

    I earned my ENERGY STAR rating thanks to the extensive retrofitting of my lighting and HVAC systems.

    C’mon, you know my thermal storage system heats you up.

     

     

     

     

     

    Atlanta

    The Hurt Building, built in 1913, is over 430,000 sq. feet. Photo: USGBCGA102 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $23.9 million in cost savings.

    Let’s make history together!
    This Southern belle just got a fresh makeover and is ready for love.  

    You know me as the Hurt Tower; and I may be one of the first skyscrapers in America, but I’m all youth and vitality on the inside, wrapped in a well-preserved exterior.

    I have a rainwater collection system and water-efficient toilets, which reduced my consumption by 44 percent. That’s a lot of sweet tea!

    I may not be a perfect 10 but I do have an ENERGY STAR rating of 91. You know you want me.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    New York

    The Riverhouse spans 470,000 sq. feet. 90 ENERGY STAR–labeled buildings in 2009; $88.3 million in cost savings.

    High class Riverhouse seeks refined live-in
    I’m probably not a very good match for the average environmentalist’s wallet. Only the most refined tastes seem to appreciate my automatically rotating photovoltaic roof cells and rainfall recycling system. A natural beauty—I was constructed with locally acquired renewable materials and non-toxic paints—I’m ready for the real deal when it comes to green.

    Update: Rumors are swirling about a Leonardo DiCaprio sighting in one of my units. Sources close to the star say he was wooed by my double-paned windows, filtered air, and gray water recycling system. Leo’s dog Rufus approves of this flirtation, thanks to my luxury dog spa.

    Related Links:

    How the West is Winning Against Coal

    Performance issues in Chicago men’s room reek havoc on water conservation

    Zero-Carbon Buildings






  • H&M’s organic line and the Wal-Mart perspective

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Eurochic retailer H&M is launching an earth-friendly spring Garden Collection, H&M shopper Joe Romm reports. No, scratch that, this is from thegreengirls.com. The new line will include recycled polyester, organic cotton, and organic linen. Presumably the expected life of these clothes won’t be any longer than typical H&M items, which aren’t exactly known for their durability.

    I think you can look at this the same way you look at Wal-Mart’s recent announcement that it was asking suppliers to reduce the carbon impact of their factory-produced tchotchkes. If we’re going to have cheap, mass-produced clothing, furniture, salad-shooters, etc., that aren’t made to last, it’s good to make them with sustainable materials and practices. And we’re probably going to have Wal-Marts and H&Ms for the foreseeable future, so it makes sense to prod and push and encourage them toward better practices, as the Environmental Defense Fund does.

    At the same time, to act as though we’re stuck in a throwaway, big-box world is a colossal failure of imagination. We can do better. As Stacy Mitchell argues in a smart piece, when you zoom out a bit, Wal-Mart’s (and H&M’s) track record just isn’t so hot.

    Pricier but well-made clothes from a local retailer are probably the responsible thing to wear. And … now I’m nagging. This is why I don’t write about clothes.

    Ashley Braun says it’s important to include this video:

    Related Links:

    Senate climate bill to fund Utah tar sands development

    What to make of the Pollan/Schlosser agreement with Wendy’s?

    Scrounging for a green angle to the Large Hadron Collider experiment






  • China to de-stink landfill problem with giant deodorant guns

    by Ashley Braun

    Residents of Beijing are making a stink about the excessive odors residing around the city’s many landfills, which are rising in number nearly as quickly as the Chinese population. (Maybe the government should institute a “one landfill per couple” policy?)

    But instead of cleaning up this mess of problems for those down in the dumps, Chinese authorities are covering them up with spray-on deodorant. That’s right. They’ll be filling the air over the trash heaps with the fragrance of a 100 deodorant guns.

    By the look of the product photo below, it looks like they also do weddings.

    penwuji.com

    Related Links:

    Scrounging for a green angle to the Large Hadron Collider experiment

    Understanding the allure of ‘drill baby drill’

    Is Obama’s offshore drilling plan winning any GOP votes?






  • The NYT highlights a key food-system gap: infrastucture

    by Tom Philpott

    When you’ve been in the trenches writing about a problem for a while, it’s good to see it finally getting traction in media and policy circles. That’s why I was thrilled to see Sunday’s New York Times piece on how a shortage of infrastructure is hampering the growth of local and regional food production.

    If you want more happy cows, agitate for more slaughterhouses and dairy facilities. When I helped start Maverick Farms in 2004—and immediately started trying to source local meat and dairy for our farm dinners—it quickly became evident that the infrastructure needed to create an accessible, efficient, and profitable alternative food system in our area simply didn’t exist.

    The infrastructure gap was one of the topics that inspired me to write about food policy in the first place. In my very first Victual Reality column—published Aug. 16, 2006—I declared that “The problem facing local food production isn’t lack of demand; it’s lack of infrastructure.”

    It’s a theme I’ve returned to dozens of times since (including in a recent op-ed for Newsweek). It is the lens through which I view the related topic of corporate consolidation of the food system —as large companies swallow up share of the food market, they shutter “inefficient” small processing plants and focus on operating ever fewer and ever larger facilities. The withering away of local-food infrastructure is a direct consequence of consolidation.

    My Meat Wagon series of posts, which focuses on the depredations of the very few companies who control the vast majority of meat production in this country, is animated by the desire to see a revival of human-scale, widely distributed diversified agriculture that mixes crops and livestock.

    I’ve argued again and again that local and regional food networks are never going to gain real traction without serious infrastructure investment; and that small and mid-sized farms, with their tight or negative profit margins, simply don’t have the cash flow to make those investments. Who should? To long-time readers, this will sound like a broken record: The federal government—which looked the other way while the food industry consolidated to levels that would make a 19th century robber baron blush, and which greases that system even now with crop subsidies—will have to step in. What we have is a classic market failure: growing demand for locally produced, pasture-based meat; growing desire among farmers to produce such meat; and a tight bottle-neck in processing infrastructure.

    I even made the eminently sensible—and utterly ignored—argument last year that a big chunk of the stimulus spending be directed to rebuilding local and regional food infrastructure. Sigh.

    So imagine my joy when I see stuff like this in the New York Times.

    In what could be a major setback for America’s local-food movement, championed by so-called locavores, independent farmers around the country say they are forced to make slaughter appointments before animals are born and to drive hundreds of miles to facilities, adding to their costs and causing stress to livestock.

    As a result, they are scaling back on plans to expand their farms because local processors cannot handle any more animals.

    And the USDA, which has rarely until very recently uttered a peep about consolidation or the withering away of infrastructure, has taken note.

    “It’s pretty clear there needs to be attention paid to this,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview. “Particularly in the Northeast, where there is indeed a backlog and lengthy wait for slaughter facilities.”

    According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the number of slaughterhouses nationwide declined to 809 in 2008 from 1,211 in 1992, while the number of small farmers has increased by 108,000 in the past five years.

    And the agency is even devoting resources to fix the problem.

    Mr. Vilsack … [is] urging farmers to band together and open local cooperatives or mobile slaughter facilities. The Agriculture Department is financing some mobile units and helping to build a regional facility near the Quad Cities in Illinois and Iowa. Helping small farmers, Mr. Vilsack said, will improve struggling rural economies.

    “We recognize that the buy-local food movement is a significant economic driver in rural communities,” he said.

    Of course, it remains to be pointed out that such funds—embedded in the “Know your Farmer, Know Your Food” program—amount to pennies on the dollar compared to what’s being spent on crop subsidies and corn-ethanol goodies.

    But it’s a start—and gratifying to see.

    Yet there remain massive gaps. The most glaring one today, to my mind, is dairy. According to this pretty amazing 2007 USDA report, there were 2507 processing facilities nationwide for fluid milk in 1972. By 2002, there were 524. Thus in the span of 30 years, we surrendered a startling 80 percent of our milk facilities. Over the same time period, the market share controlled by the top four dairy processors jumped from 17 percent to 42.6 percent. Today, a single company, Dean Foods, bottles more than a third of the milk consumed in the United States.

    These trends illustrate a kind of permanent, structural crisis in dairy farming—farmers face constant pressure to scale up and intensify, or exit the business. Between 1994 and 2004, the USDA report informs us, “the number of dairy farms decreased by 45 percent, but milk production per farm doubled.”

    Dairy farming recently entered particularly brutal phase—farmers are being forced to sell milk at below production costs, driving themselves into ruin and burnishing the bottom line of mega-processors like Dean Foods. Meanwhile, surviving farms tend to be large, heavy-polluting operations. Yet we’re living in a time when people are increasingly demanding access to milk from appropriate-scale, pasture-based farms. The time has come to bust up the dairy trusts—and rebuild the infrastructure that’s been laid waste as they gobbled up their smaller peers. Of course, I would say that.

     

    Related Links:

    In a D.C. school, the simple power of a good breakfast

    What’s that funny-talking TV chef doing in my West Virginia hometown?

    Witnessing the White House garden’s winter bounty






  • New ratings for sustainability in restaurants

    by treehugger.com

    The Sustainable Restaurant Association was started by the founder of Leon. Photo: MomondoIt’s not quite a Michelin Star, but it could be soon.  The newly formed Sustainable Restaurant Association will
    rate restaurants according to how green and sustainable they are.
    Launched with the backing of leading restaurants and seriously
    important English chefs, participating restaurants will be visited by a
    green inspector. They had better watch out …

    The awards are a bronze, silver, or gold status and will be listed in
    restaurant guides. And they will be judged on very rigorous standards.

    Get the full story from our friends at Treehugger.

    Related Links:

    Ask Umbra’s DIY healthy junk food: Kale chips [VIDEO]

    Live Chat with Tom Philpott

    Ask Umbra’s 6 video tips to green take-out food






  • Leno drives our electric future back from the past [video]

    by Grist

    Despite the sexiness of hydrogen options, The Tonight Show host and car aficionado Jay Leno believes electricity
    is where it’s at for automobile propulsion. Watch as he takes a closer look at the Ford Focus as compared to his own fully electric car—a pretty advanced model, traveling 100 miles on a charge. The kicker? It was built
    in 1909.

    Related Links:

    Greenpeace takes on iPads, cloud computing, other click-friendly subjects

    Streetfilms: Fixing the car-centric city

    Hand-made electric cars serve a niche market in Japan






  • Old gumball machines give guerrilla gardeners easy ammo

    by Ashley Braun

    For the guerrilla gardener on the go, why be bothered with making your own seed bombs? Greenaid’s repurposed candy dispensers will arm you with grenades of greenery for all those times you’re deep in urban war zones and remember you’re not packin’ peat (or seeds). Helping the natives beat rebel plants is now as easy as taking candy from a gumball machine.

    Greenaid / thecommonstudio.com

    Related Links:

    Lawyer: No, you shouldn’t paint your own bike lane

    China to de-stink landfill problem with giant deodorant guns

    Watching the green screens at the Environmental Film Festival in D.C.






  • Dems more trusted on energy than any other issue, continue pursuing polluter-friendly GOP ideas

    by Josh Nelson

    In new polling focused primarily on healthcare, Washington Post-ABC asked the following question:

    Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM)?

    Here are the results:

     
    Democrats
    Republicans

    The Economy
    44
    36

    Health Care
    47
    34

    Immigration Issues
    38
    35

    The Situation in Afghanistan
    43
    33

    The Federal Budget Deficit
    43
    35

    Taxes
    41
    39

    The U.S. Campaign Against Terrorism
    37
    43

    Energy Policy
    49
    32

    It looks like despite the tea parties, the stimulus, the media’s obsession with process, and the so-called ‘government takeover of health care,’ Democrats are still more trusted than Republicans on seven of eight top issues.

    Of particular interest, Democrats hold the widest trust advantage (17 percent) on energy policy, followed by health care (13 percent), Afghanistan (10 percent) and the economy (8 percent).  This finding echoes the results of recent Pew polling which found that clean energy and mass transit investments are far more popular among the American public than nuclear investments and expanded offshore drilling.  All of this strikes me as a pretty strong indictment of the Republican approach to energy policy, given the miles of separation between the parties on the issue.  While Democrats support investing in clean energy technologies and implementing a strategy to reduce global warming pollution, most Republicans oppose such a strategy and are increasingly confused about the science.  At the same time, beltway prognosticators continue celebrating the death of comprehensive climate legislation, despite its consistent popularity.

    In light of the huge trust and polling advantage Democrats hold on the issue, you would expect them to forge ahead on their popular policy proposals despite Republican opposition.  But that is not how things have played out over the past six months.  In November, Democrats moved a bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee despite unprecedented obstructionism and unanimous Republican opposition.  By the time the bill was passed through committee though, Democrats had already decided to scrap that bill, opting instead to place their hopes in a tri-partisan approach led by Senators Kerry (D-Mass.), Graham (R-S.C.) and Lieberman (I-Conn.).

    What followed has amounted to a months-long campaign of lowered expectations and concessions to industry.  Sen. Graham has taken every opportunity possible to downplay a comprehensive approach and emphasize how far from previous Democratic proposals the forthcoming legislation would be.  In February, President Obama played up pro-polluter ideas favored by Republicans in his State of the Union address.  Rather than negotiating with Republican Senators, Sens. Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman actually resorted to working with climate change denying industry groups to craft legislation that might attract 60 votes.

    The idea behind all of this movement toward a more Republican friendly (read: less effective) approach to addressing climate/energy policy is that if the bill is polluter-friendly enough, it may be able to attract 60 votes.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working.  Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is widely considered one of the more ‘gettable’ Republicans on the issue, continues suggesting Senator Kerry’s efforts be bypassed.  And Senator Graham, when he isn’t using disingenuous process complaints to downplay expectations, made it clear on Sunday that he has no interest in being the 60th vote for a climate bill.  As of this writing, no Republicans other than Graham have expressed serious support for the effort.

    Meanwhile, all of these efforts to attract industry and Republican support are weakening enthusiasm for the effort on the left.  Tellingly, when President Obama made the case for increased investments in nuclear power and expanded offshore drilling, Move On found it to be the least popular part of his SOTU, among their liberal membership.

    Over the past 10 days, a variety environmentalist groups and liberal Senators have begun to publicly criticize the yet-to-be-released legislation as it takes shape.  Here are a few examples:

    10 coastal state Senators sent a letter last week to Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, warning that they cannot support legislation that greatly expands offshore oil and gas drilling.
    Environmental group 1Sky is imploring Senators Kerry and Reid:  Don’t let big polluters rewrite the Clean Air Act.
    Senator Sanders sent a letter Friday to Senator Kerry, citing serious concerns about a variety of polluter-friendly provisions.
    Erich Pica, President of environmental group Friends of the Earth, told Greenwire, “We’re worried they’re the first ones in the room to get a briefing.”
    Mike Brune, the new Executive Director of mainstream environmental group the Sierra Club, expressed a variety of concerns last week:  “We will go to the mat for defending Clean Air Act authority. We are also concerned about offshore oil drilling, and we will not be able to accept the dramatic giveaway that offshore oil drilling represents.”

    Senator Lieberman last week brushed off concerns that the bill may lose support from the left, saying “In the end this will be one of those cases where everybody will be a little unhappy.”  The groups and Senators listed above seem more than a little unhappy to me.

    Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman would be wise to keep an eye on their left flank.  Weakening the legislation in an attempt to gain industry/republican support will cost them the support of some liberal Senators and environmental groups.  And it may do so without even winning them the support of an equal number of conservative Senators.  Worse yet, given the new polling showing that Democrats are more trusted than Republicans on energy policy, further concessions to Republicans would likely weaken support for the bill among the American public.  Democrats should be emboldened by this polling data, and should take it as a sign that crafting polluter-friendly policies to try to gain the support of Republicans is a losing strategy, both in terms of policy and politics.

    Originally published at EnviroKnow

    Related Links:

    Lindsey ‘Green Economy’ Graham bashes the Clean Air Act

    Who killed cap-and-trade?

    Sen. Tom Udall: “My goal would be to get 10 Republicans on the climate bill”






  • Palin sticks with ‘drill here, drill now’ in Nevada Tea Party speech

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Sarah Palin is sticking with the “Drill here, drill now” slogan/policy position she championed during the 2008 presidential campaign. She dusted off the familiar phrase at a Saturday speech in Nevada for Tea Party activists, calling for more nuclear energy, offshore drilling, and “clean coal” spending.

    “Congress and those in the White House choose to not allow us to develop our own God-given resources in the United States of America,” she said.

    The substance of her energy argument isn’t all that interesting, because…

    The White House strongly supports nuclear energy. Last month President Obama announced an $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee to build two new reactors in Georgia.
    The potential of offshore drilling has been widely debunked—it’ll take 10 years to reach significant production levels and 20 years to reach peak production.
    Clean coal doesn’t exist, except as a marketing ploy.

    What is interesting is that the call for energy independence from Palin sounds a lot like the calls for energy independence from renewables advocates (including veterans for clean energy). From her speech on Saturday: “There is an inherent link between energy and prosperity, between energy and security, and between energy and freedom. We do need to drill here and drill now.”

    Half of that makes sense.

    Related Links:

    Obama’s Oil Plan: Something For Nothing? Or Nothing For Something?

    Energy Independence Through Greater Addiction

    Scrounging for a green angle to the Large Hadron Collider experiment






  • Earth Hour: Landmarks went dark in call for climate action

    by Agence France-Presse

    The Golden Gate bridge during Earth Hour. Photo courtesy Earth Hour Global via FlickrSAN FRANCISCO—From Sydney Harbor to the world’s tallest tower in Dubai to the ancient pyramids, major landmarks went dark for an hour to join the battle against climate change. In all, a record 4,000 cities and 125 countries participated in Saturday night’s fourth annual Earth Hour, organized by WWF.

    San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge turned off all but essential lights, and tourist monuments briefly went missing from the skyline, while Twitter and Facebook set up applications to let screens darken for an hour.

    The annual dimming of lights was hailed by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as “both a warning and a beacon of hope.”

    “As we watch the lights go out from continent to continent, let us reflect on the fragility and importance of our natural heritage and pledge to protect it for a sustainable future for all,” said the U.N. chief.

    “From Brazil to America, to Canada, all the way down to Australia, Japan and India—it’s a really diverse set of countries taking part this year,” said Earth Hour Executive Director Andy Ridley.

    New Zealand’s Chatham Islands officially started the energy-saving demonstration, switching off its diesel generators to leave just 12 street lamps burning. Sydney’s iconic harbor and opera house went dark to the sound of blaring ferry horns.

    In Beijing, the Forbidden City joined in.  In Dubai, the world’s tallest building, the recently opened Burj Khalifa, had its lights switched off.

    Egypt participated as well, with lights turned off at the Giza plateau, plunging the three Great Pyramids, the Sphinx, and the surrounding desert into total darkness.

    North America’s tallest building, the 110-floor Willis Tower, led a mass switch-off in Chicago, where more than than 200 buildings joined the campaign to save energy. “By participating in the symbolic event of Earth Hour, we show that, together, we can collectively make a difference to protect and preserve the environment,” said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

    Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney and enjoys widespread support from the public and big business, including Google, Coca-Cola, and McDonald’s.

    But some cities and icons could not or would not join in.

    In Bangkok, city authorities were ordered to halt their Earth Hour campaign for security reasons as anti-government protesters held a major rally.

    In Europe, London’s Big Ben turned off its lights and the bank of neon advertisements in Piccadilly Circus went dark. It is thought to be only the fourth time since World War II that the huge Coca-Cola sign there has been dimmed. But some onlookers said the city should have gone further.

    “I thought it was going to be the whole of Piccadilly and it’s just the screens. It should have been all the lights and all the buildings around here,” said Sandra Herrera, 23, visiting from Bilbao, Spain.

    More than 240 buildings and monuments in Paris participated in Earth Hour, but the Eiffel Tower only went dark for five minutes.

    In New York, the landmark Empire State and Chrysler building turned off their lights, as did United Nations headquarters on East River. But Times Square’s hoardings remained a beacon of commercial excess. “It was disappointing,” commented Melodie Carli, a 20-year-old French national in Times Square. “We came here especially to see the event.”

    Related Links:

    Scrounging for a green angle to the Large Hadron Collider experiment

    Understanding the allure of ‘drill baby drill’

    Is Obama’s offshore drilling plan winning any GOP votes?






  • Who killed cap-and-trade?

    by Robert Stavins

    In a recent article in the New York Times, John Broder asks “Why did cap-and-trade die?” and responds that “it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street
    meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity.” Mr.
    Broder’s analysis is concise and insightful, and I recommend it to readers. But I think there’s one factor that is more important than all those
    mentioned above in causing cap-and-trade to have changed from
    politically correct to politically anathema in just nine months. Before turning to that, however, I would like to question the premise
    of my own essay.

    Is cap-and-trade really dead?

    Although cap-and-trade has fallen dramatically in political favor in Washington as the U.S. answer to climate change, this approach to reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is by no means “dead.”

    The evolving Kerry-Graham-Lieberman legislation has a cap-and-trade system at its heart for the electricity-generation
    sector, with other sectors to be phased in later (and it employs
    another market-based approach, a series of fuel taxes for the
    transportation sector linked to the market price for allowances).  Of
    course, due to the evolving political climate, the three Senators will
    probably not call their system “cap-and-trade,” but will give it some
    other creative label.

    The competitor proposal from Senators Cantwell and Collinsthe CLEAR Act—has been labeled by those Senators as a “cap-and-dividend” approach,
    but it is nothing more nor less than a cap-and-trade system with a
    particular allocation mechanism (100 percent auction) and a particular use of
    revenues (75 percent directly rebated to households)—and, it should be
    mentioned, some unfortunate and unnecessary restrictions on allowance trading.

    And we should not forget that cap-and-trade continues to emerge as
    the preferred policy instrument to address climate change emissions
    throughout the industrialized world—in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan (as I wrote about in a recent post).

    But back to the main story—the dramatic change in the political
    reception given in Washington to this cost-effective approach to
    environmental protection.

    A rapid descent from politically correct to politically anathema

    Among factors causing this change were:  the economic recession; the
    financial crisis (linked, in part, with real and perceived abuses in
    financial markets) which thereby caused great suspicion about
    markets in general and in particular about trading in intangible assets
    such as emission allowances; and the complex nature of the Waxman-Markey legislation (which is mainly not about cap-and-trade, but various regulatory approaches).

    But the most important factor—by far—which led to the
    change from politically correct to politically anathema was the simple
    fact that cap-and-trade was the approach that was receiving the most serious consideration,
    indeed the approach that had been passed by one of the houses of
    Congress. This brought not only great scrutiny of the approach, but—more important—it meant that all of the hostility to action on climate change, mainly but not exclusively from Republicans and coal-state Democrats, was targeted at the policy du jour—cap-and-trade.

    The same fate would have befallen any front-running climate policy.

    Does anyone really believe that if a carbon tax had been the major
    policy being considered in the House and Senate that it would have
    received a more favorable rating from climate-action skeptics on the
    right? If there’s any doubt about that, take note that Republicans in
    the Congress were unified and successful in demonizing cap-and-trade as
    “cap-and-tax.”

    Likewise, if a multi-faceted regulatory approach (that would have
    been vastly more costly for what would be achieved) had been the policy
    under consideration, would it have garnered greater political support? Of course not. If there is doubt about that, just observe the solid
    Republican Congressional hostility (and some announced Democratic
    opposition) to the C02 regulatory pathway that EPA has announced under its endangerment finding in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA.

    (There’s a minor caveat, namely, that environmental policy approaches that hide their costs frequently are politically favored over policies that make their costs visible, even if the former policy is actually more costly. A prime example is the broad political support for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, relative to the more effective and less costly option
    of gasoline taxes. Of course, cap-and-trade can be said to obscure its
    costs relative to a carbon tax, but that hardly made much difference
    once opponents succeeded in labeling it “cap-and-tax.”)

    In general, any climate policy approach—if it was meaningful in its objectives and had any chance of being enacted—would have become the prime target of political skepticism and
    scorn. This has been the fate of cap-and-trade over the past nine
    months.

    Why is political support for climate policy action so low in the United States?

    If much of the political hostility directed at cap-and-trade
    proposals in Washington has largely been due to hostility towards
    climate policy in general, this raises a further question, namely, why
    has there been so little political support in Washington for climate
    policy in general. Several reasons can be identified.

    For one thing, U.S. public support on this issue has decreased
    significantly, as has been validated by a number of reliable polls,
    including from the Gallup Organization. Indeed, in January of this year, a Pew Research Center poll found that “dealing with global warming” was ranked 21st among 21 possible priorities for the President and Congress. This drop
    in public support is itself at least partly due to the state of the
    national economy, as public enthusiasm about environmental action has—for many decades—been found to be inversely correlated with various
    measures of national economic well-being.

    Although the lagging economy (and consequent unemployment) is likely
    the major factor explaining the fall in public support for climate
    policy action, other contributing factors have been the so-called Climategate episode of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia and the damaged credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to several errors in recent reports.

    Furthermore, the nature of the climate change problem itself helps
    to explain the relative apathy among the U.S. public. Nearly all of
    our major environmental laws have been passed in the wake of
    highly-publicized environmental events or “disasters,” ranging from Love Canal to the Cuyahoga River.

    But the day after Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1969, no article in The Cleveland Plain Dealer commented that “the cause was uncertain, because rivers periodically
    catch on fire from natural causes.” On the contrary, it was
    immediately apparent that the cause was waste dumped into the river by
    adjacent industries. A direct consequence of the “disaster” was, of
    course, the Clean Water Act of 1972.

    But climate change is distinctly different. Unlike the
    environmental threats addressed successfully in past legislation,
    climate change is essentially unobservable. You and I observe the
    weather, not the climate. Until there is an obvious and sudden event—such as a loss of part of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to a
    disastrous sea-level rise—it’s unlikely that public opinion in the
    United States will provide the bottom-up demand for action that has
    inspired previous Congressional action on the environment over the past
    forty years.

    Finally, it should be acknowledged that the fiercely partisan
    political climate in Washington has completed the gradual erosion of
    the bi-partisan coalitions that had enacted key environmental laws over
    four decades. Add to this the commitment by the opposition party to
    deny the president any (more) political victories in this year of
    mid-term Congressional elections, and the possibility of progressive
    climate policy action appears unlikely in the short term.

    An open-ended question

    There are probably other factors that help explain the fall in
    public and political support for climate policy action, as well as the
    changed politics of cap-and-trade.
    I suspect that readers will tell me about these.

    Related Links:

    Lindsey ‘Green Economy’ Graham bashes the Clean Air Act

    Let’s call setting a price on carbon “puppies”

    Dems more trusted on energy than any other issue, continue pursuing polluter-friendly GOP ideas






  • U.S. proposes to veto mountaintop-removal coal mine

    by Agence France-Presse

    WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed an unprecedented veto to restrict or prohibit mining at a major proposed mountaintop-removal coal mining site.

    If the veto is finalized, it would invalidate a permit first issued in 2007 for the Army Corps of Engineers at the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in southern West Virginia.

    In explaining its decision, the EPA said Friday that the Arch Coal Inc. mine would pollute surrounding water, fill over seven miles of stream, cause “unacceptable” harm to wildlife, and “directly impact” some
    2,278 acres of forest.

    A rare step in three decades of mountaintop mining in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia, the decision was the first time the EPA has proposed to veto a mine that already had received a permit.  It was the 12th time the agency has used its veto power for any project since the 1972 Clean Water Act became law.

    “Landscape and site-specific assessments reveal that past and current mountaintop mining has caused substantial, irreplaceable loss of resources and an irreversible effect on these resources within the Coal River basin,” the EPA said in a statement.

    In its summary of its proposal on the Spruce No. 1 mine, the agency said that “applying the lessons of the past, we now know that failure to control mining practices has resulted in persistent environmental degradation in the form of acid mine drainage and other impacts that cost billions to remedy.”

    Environmentalists say mountaintop mining, in which entire coal seams are removed from the tops of mountains, pollutes streams and valleys, dumps toxic mining byproducts, and disfigures the landscape.

    Arch Coal condemned the EPA’s action and vowed to “vigorously defend the Spruce permit by all legal means.” Its stock prices closed 20 cents lower at $22.69 on Friday.

    Environmental groups, meanwhile, hailed the EPA’s move. “The best available science tells us that proposed mines like the massive Spruce Mine would pollute waterways, destroy mountains, and devastate communities,” the Sierra Club’s director of environmental quality, Ed Hopkins, said in a statement.

    According to Business Week, mountaintop mining accounts for 6 percent of U.S. coal production. Coal supplies about 50 percent of U.S. electricity needs.

    Related Links:

    Breaking: Obama will open large sections of Southeast and Alaskan coasts to offshore drilling

    Greenpeace takes on iPads, cloud computing, other click-friendly subjects

    Lawyer: No, you shouldn’t paint your own bike lane