Author: Main Feed – Environmental Defense

This post was co-authored by Camille Kustin.

Freight—nearly everything we buy, eat, manufacture, or build with—is carried to us by a complex system of shipping routes, rail lines, highways, ports, and rail yards.

Unfortunately, pollution from moving all this freight is significant, and growing. Truck, locomotive, and ship engines spew greenhouse gases, toxic diesel soot, and other dangerous pollutants. These emissions contribute to global warming and are responsible for serious health problems. This is the first in a series of posts about how to address the huge environmental and public health costs of moving goods around the country.

The freight sector alone represents nearly a quarter of the transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, or approximately 8% of total US carbon dioxide emissions according to the U.S. EPA (see pages 130-132). To make matters worse, freight's greenhouse gas emissions have been steadily increasing, even faster than other transportation sectors' emissions. According to the same EPA report, freight's emissions have increased almost 60% since 1990. Meanwhile, passenger travel’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased 24% from 1990 to 2007.

This increase comes with dangerous health risks for American communities. The fine particle pollution from U.S. diesel engines—the most common engines used in freight –is estimated to shorten the lives of nearly 21,000 people each year. And in California, the California Air Resources Board estimates that freight-related pollution was responsible for about 2,400 premature deaths, 2,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions, 62,000 asthma and lower respiratory cases, 360,000 lost work days, and 1.1 million lost school days in 2005 alone.

By 2020, 90.1 million tons of freight are expected to move throughout the U.S., an 80 percent increase from 2002.

The $64,000 question is: Can we keep growing freight transportation and also reduce the damage it does?

We think so — but only if freight's environmental performance is given the attention it demands.

The federal transportation bill provides a good opportunity to modernize country's freight system in a way that also reduces pollution. The bill can steer money to forward-looking gateways and corridors that are planning their infrastructure in a way that gets measurable and sustainable environmental benefits. Freight system improvements that achieve measureable benefits—such as cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, less noise for surrounding communities—should be first in line for funding. That alone will motivate other bidders for those dollars to pay attention to their environmental bottom line.

Over the coming weeks, we'll be sharing some examples of great innovations several freight haulers, gateways, hubs and states have used to simultaneously improve efficiency and environmental performance. They prove it can be done, and these projects ought to be emulated. Federal policy and funding can help turn the U.S. freight system into the most advanced—and cleanest—system in the world.

Many organizations now rely on open source software, ranging from the famed Linux operating system to its web-server cousin Apache, right down to curiously named programs like jboss, tomcat, Moodle, Drupal, mailman, SugarCRM, Zimbra, Asterisk and smarty.

But how many have adopted open source processes? The programmer communities that designed those applications (and the Internet they mostly ride) developed principles and practices that are broadly useful. These include keeping the code and the conversations completely open to outsiders, governance and licensing models, and platform and interoperability strategies.

We have an opportunity to take a quick, deep dive into a particular situation where these dynamics are at work.

Brian Behlendorf was part of the original Apache web server community. Now he's helping the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services apply open-source principles to health IT. His focus is on a public-private partnership program called NIHN and its open-source project, CONNECT.

We'll talk with Brian about the dynamics of collaboration between private and public entities that work in this extremely complex health IT environment and have a lot at stake.

Join us on Monday, March 8, 2010 at noon ET (9am PT) for the call:

• Phone number: +1 (213) 289-0500
• Code: 267-6815

Get Updates about EDFix Conference Calls

If you'd like to get announcements about upcoming EDFix conference calls and the results with podcast releases, please sign-up here:

To great fanfare this week, Silicon Valley darling Bloom Energy unveiled its highly anticipated next-generation fuel cell technology. Luminaries from Colin Powell to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (don't forget Google's Larry Page!) were on hand at eBay's campus to heap praise on Bloom's product, which claims to transform how energy is produced. It was an impressive show.

The vision

“Bloom Energy is dedicated to making clean, reliable energy affordable for everyone in the world,” said KR Sridhar, founder and CEO of Bloom Energy. “We believe that we can have the same kind of impact on energy that the mobile phone had on communications."

No modest pronouncement. But if Bloom's solid-oxide fuel cell can deliver on the promises made this week, it's hard to disagree with Sridhar's bold prediction.

Bloom's vision sees its fuel cell units (affectionately known as Bloom Boxes) distributed across the globe, from corporate campuses to African villages. The fuel cell apparently can utilize a range of inputs, from biofuel to conventional fuels, and Sridhar says it can distribute energy with lower emissions and lower costs. To good to be true? Perhaps. Only time will tell. The product launch avoided the all-important patented details of just how energy can be provided more cheaply and more cleanly than current methods.

Why it matters

During this explosion of clean tech innovation in California, such bold pronouncements are as common as sunny days. So amidst claims of new green technology breakthroughs, what's different about the Bloom announcement? And how's it relevant to EDF's policy efforts in California? Three thoughts:

1) Cheaper AND cleaner? If Bloom delivers on its promises, and it’s a big if, the technology hits a 'sweet spot' that could save the planet. The Bloom Boxes appeal to business leaders and companies that are going green under the triple bottom line model for people, planet and profits. In other words, the breakthrough technology proposes to generate energy with less greenhouse gas pollution and at the same time reduce costs. This achievement may be the holy grail of the climate action movement. Almost every new promising green energy technology to date, from exciting new forms of solar to new cellulosic biofuels processes, can clearly demonstrate lower emissions but cannot yet compete with conventional fuels without a price signal on carbon pollution.

2) Corporate Partnerships Bloom reached out to mainstream corporations—among the biggest in the world—to test the fuel cells before announcing the technology. Coca-Cola, FedEx, Wal-Mart, and Google have had the Bloom fuel cells powering their facilities for at least several months. High-level executives from these companies served on a panel at the product launch moderated by John Doerr to testify to the fact that the Bloom Boxes saved companies energy and money. I can't imagine these companies are in the business of going out on a limb with their own corporate brand and credibility to validate new technologies. Translation: the technology appears to work and for companies that are interested in solutions to save money and the planet!

3) Bipartisan Support A wide array of political leaders jumped in to applaud Bloom’s efforts. From Governor Schwarzenegger to Senator Feinstein, from Assemblyman Jim Beall (D-San Jose) to Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R- San Luis Obispo), elected officials of both parties participated to promote the clean technology revolution in California. And why not? It's a political win-win: grow jobs, protect the environment, and save consumers money. Amidst a polarized environment in Sacramento, promoting the expansion of the clean energy economy, which grows jobs and helps improve our air quality and quality of life, is a political agenda both parties embrace.

California is a place where companies like Bloom can take off

Bloom's founder Sridhar is an immigrant from India and was an academic researcher who advanced the fuel cell technology working for NASA on Mars colonization. Once he decided to commercialize this new technology, Sridhar and his team could have located their R&D and production facility anywhere in the U.S. (or the world for that matter). But, they chose California's Silicon Valley.

This choice is testament to the unequivocal position of California as a fertile bed of innovation. A place where transformative ideas take flight. It also means that policy makers and organizations such as EDF bear a big responsibility to advance policies that keep California the epicenter of the clean energy economy and help it lead the green revolution. It's a responsibility that we take seriously. With so much at stake—and to gain—we are confident that the return on these investments will pay off handsomely and the economic and environmental rewards will be shared throughout California.

On March 3^rd, Gwen Ruta will be a “working-group facilitator” at The Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics Conference in Santa Barbara, CA.

From March 9^th thru March 12^th Jana Holt and Jason Mathers will be at the National Truck Equipment Association’s Work Truck Show in St. Louis, MO. In Conjunction with the Work Truck Show, Jana will be speaking at The Green Truck Summit on Incentives on March 9^th. At the event, EDF will be showcasing a new white-paper on greenhouse management for medium duty trucks, based on our Green Fleet program.

Business author Bruce Piasecki will be speaking at the National Press Club’s Holeman Lounge on March 10^th about his book "The Surprising Solution," and Dave Witzel will attend the event to learn more about "Succeeding in a Carbon and Capital Constrained World."

Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp and Director of Marketing Communications for Corporate Partnerships, Melanie Janin will be in New York City on March 15^th for the Economist’s Corporate Citizenship Conference where former President Bill Clinton will give the keynote address.

Fred Krupp will also be speaking at the Financial Times Investing in a Sustainable Future Conference in New York City on March 24^th.

At the Conference Board’s Center for Corporate Citizenship & Sustainability Member Meeting in Milpitas, CA March 24^th thru March 26^th, Dave Witzel will be speaking on a panel titled, “Venture Capital for Sustainability: Betting on Breakthroughs?”

Gwen Ruta will also be attending a Conference Board event this month – the Work Life Conference in Washington, DC on March 25^th and 26^th on Leading in the “New Normal” Economy: How Employers and Employees Can Thrive Now and in the Future.

We will also be hosting two EDFix Conference Calls: on March 8^th and March 22^nd. Check the calendar for updates on discussion topics and speakers.

Look for us at these conferences – and let us know if you’ll be there so we can watch for you as well!

You can always see where we’re going to be – and what other conferences we know about– on the Innovation Exchange Calendar.

Spreck Rosekrans is an Economic Analyst at EDF.

In perhaps what will be the most anticipated water supply forecast in California history, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation today released its preliminary water supply forecast for 2010. The Bureau projects that it will be able to deliver full contract amounts to most of its contractors, including senior agricultural users in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, as well as contractors along the Stanislaus River and in the Friant Division. Municipal contractors north-of-Delta are also expected to receive 100% while those south-of Delta are forecast to receive a 75% allocation.

Everybody’s attention however, is on the lowest number. The Bureau projects a contract allocation of only 30% to Central Valley Project south-of-Delta “Agricultural Service” contractors, including the politically powerful Westlands Water District. It is essential to understand that this 30% allocation is based on the "most likely" forecast. If the remainder of the winter is exceptionally dry, these contractors could receive only 5% of their contractual maximum. California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, has indicated that she intends to pursue legislation that would suspend provisions of the Endangered Species Act unless the Ag Service Contractors receive 38-40% of their contract entitlement in 2010. Today's forecast indicates that Ag Service contractors will in fact reach the 40% target with the additional supplies that are expected to be purchased from other sources in the San Joaquin Valley. Senator Feinstein has not specified whether the 40% target must be met solely with Reclamation's Deliveries from the Delta or whether the additional acquired water will count as well.

No doubt, this is a tough issue. We at EDF are sympathetic to the needs of farms along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley (and throughout California) but we will oppose any efforts to diminish the Endangered Species Act provisions currently in place to protect fisheries in the Bay Delta. We support the Biological Opinions issued pursuant to the ESA that limit the degree to which the lower San Joaquin River is allowed to run backward for the first half of the year in order to protect salmon, sturgeon, Delta smelt and other fish at risk of extinction. And like Congressman George Miller, we do not believe politics should trump science. 

It may not be fair that the cutbacks in exports disproportionately affect a group of farmers and communities that, having depleted their groundwater basin, have come to rely so heavily on the Delta as its primary source of supplies. But it is also not reasonable to blame environmental restrictions when other sources of water are not made available to the west side.

It is important to note that Delta exports account for a minor portion of the water used by agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin. Most agricultural lands (see attached map) in California do not depend at all on exports from the Delta and many of those that do are accorded higher priority than the CVP Ag Service contractors. As the graph below shows, the amount of water dedicated to ESA compliance in 2009 is a small part of the total amount of water used in the region. The challenge and solution is to find other ways to provide water where it is needed while respecting existing water rights and the ESA.

We agree with economists such as Richard Howitt (UC Davis), Jeffrey Michael (UOP) and David Sunding (UC Berkeley) that California’s conflicts over water can be greatly diminished by expanded use of markets. In the San Joaquin Valley, a better market for that water which is already extracted from the environment would provide incentives for improved efficiency and greater agricultural production. But, as evidenced by today’s announcement, without viable markets, impacts fall disproportionately on selected communities that have few alternatives.

A majority of Americans are worried that the United States’ role in the world economy will diminish in the coming years, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But the truth is, China is already beating the U.S. to clean energy jobs.

China is quickly becoming the global powerhouse in clean energy manufacturing and innovation, dwarfing the efforts of America. Backed by huge investment and an industrial policy bigger than the world has ever seen, China has become the worldwide leader in new energy technology markets while the U.S. is quickly falling behind.

But we can match the scale of China’s centralized industrial policy by fully deploying the engine of American prosperity: our marketplace. It is the only tool we have with the scale and capital to compete with China.

If the U.S. puts a limit on carbon pollution from dirtier sources of energy, we will send a clear signal to the marketplace that will unleash a massive wave of private investment in clean energy that would allow us to compete with the Chinese. Only when American policy creates a profit motive for investors, inventors and entrepreneurs, will we have a chance to win the race.

President Obama made that case to the Business Roundtable. He called for a price on carbon to kick-start America’s efforts to win the clean technology race.

Key excerpts of the President remarks:

A competitive America is also an America that finally has a smart energy policy. We know there is no silver bullet here – that to reduce our dependence on oil and the damage caused by climate change, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives for clean energy.

But to truly transition to a clean energy economy, I’ve also said that we need to put a price on carbon pollution …

What we can’t do is stand still. The only certainty of the status quo is that the price and supply of oil will become increasingly volatile; that the use of fossil fuels will wreak havoc on weather patterns and air quality. But if we decide now that we’re putting a price on this pollution in a few years, it will give businesses the certainty of knowing they have time to plan and transition. This country has to move towards a clean energy economy. That’s where the world is going. And that’s how America will remain competitive and strong in the 21^st century.

If Congress puts a limit on carbon pollution, the U.S. will compete with China. If we don’t, there’s no reason to believe the future will look any different than the facts we see today. Those facts are listed below, or you can download and print EDF's one-page handout version [PDF].

China’s Climate and Energy Policies Create an Investment Advantage

• In 2009, China dedicated $440 billion in government funding solely to clean energy. –AFP, 5/24/2009
• Renewable energy industries in China reached 1.12 million jobs in 2008 and are increasing by 100,000 a year. –NYT, 1/31/2010
• China is already moving aggressively on measures it promised at Copenhagen, including closing an additional 10 gigawatts of inefficient, polluting coal plants. – Washington Post, 1/7/2010
• In December 2009, China passed a law requiring its electric grid companies to buy any and all electricity generated from renewable sources. – WSJ, 12/27/2009

China Goes into Wind Power Overdrive in 2009

• Five years ago, there was almost no Chinese presence in the wind manufacturing industry, and now China hosts the world’s largest wind market with installed capacity of over 25,000 MW, a significant increase from 2008, when China was home to about 12,000 MW. – GWEC, 2/3/2010
• As the world’s wind power capacity grew by 31% in 2009, China was responsible for one-third of the additions, experiencing industry growth of over 100%. – GWEC, 2/3/2010

The Saudi Arabia of Solar

• China has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. – NYT, 1/31/2010
• Already home to one-third of global solar manufacturing capacity, Chinese competition has reduced global solar prices by 30% and is forcing rivals to shift production facilities to China: U.S. Evergreen Solar Inc. is moving its assembly line from Massachusetts to China, while BP PLC's solar unit said it would stop output in Maryland and rely on Chinese suppliers instead. – WSJ, 12/15/2009
• Responding to domestic demand, Applied Materials – the world’s largest supplier of equipment to the solar photovoltaic industry – opened the world’s largest private sector solar research center in Xian, China in October 2009. – TIME, 11/30/2009

Green Technology Investment

• Batteries and Electric Cars – China is also leading in advanced vehicle and battery technology. Chinese firm BYD introduced the world’s first plug-in hybrid vehicle , China’s production of lithium ion batteries had accounted for 41 percent of the global market by 2008, and the number of battery companies in China increased from 455 to 613 between 2001 and 2004. – Breakthrough Institute, 11/09
• Transmission — China is an emerging world leader in ultra-high-voltage, or UHV transmission technology, with more than 100 domestic manufacturers and suppliers. The State Grid Corporation will invest $44 billion through 2012, and $88 billion through 2020 in building UHV transmission lines. – Center for American Progress, 6/4/2009

Wanted: Swamp-loving snowbirds for part-time environmental jobs in Cajun country. Responsibilities will include ecosystem maintenance, occasional guided tours, and data collection. Free housing provided, along with wide vistas and scenic birdwatching opportunities. Must love alligators, loathe nutria. 

Currently, there are no postings like the one above in the New Orleans Times-Picayune or the Houma Courier, but Louisiana’s wetlands could market themselves as a new haven for older people seeking low living costs and substantive community involvement during their retirement years. We estimate that a $92.4 million marsh maintenance project could provide 1,500 retirement age residents with free program housing, training, and materials over a period of ten years. 

The New York Times reported last week that retirees, in exchange for free camping sites and subsidized rent, are signing up for positions in nature management throughout the country. As a generation whose coming of age coincided with the civil rights movement and the publication of Silent Spring, citizens in their sixties and seventies have expressed a desire to spend their golden years maintaining America’s natural legacy and re-engaging young people with the country’s natural parks. Louisiana can and should look to create such positions for older Americans in the wetlands of the Mississippi River Delta. 

These jobs should be advertised to both out-of-state retirees and elderly people born and bred on the bayous. Though Louisiana has a slightly younger age profile than the nation as a whole, it is still home to more than 525,000 residents over age 65. Women make up nearly 60% of Louisiana’s elderly population, and many residents of retirement age, regardless of their gender, struggle to get by on fixed incomes. Though rents in Louisiana are lower than the national average, nearly 43% of state residents use 35% or more of their monthly income to cover housing costs. 

Within the state, rents have historically been highest in urbanized parishes and the Mississippi River Delta, as shown in the map at right of parish-level rental data from the 2000 census. This housing stress is strongly tied to age, on top of the broader national correlations with race and class. Work programs with subsidized housing options included could be a boon for older residents interested in maintaining restored marshlands, connecting with their natural surroundings, and keeping their living costs low. 

How much would it cost the state or federal government to house, train, and equip this grey-haired green coalition? Let’s assume that the free housing is given in exchange for work by the elderly volunteers. The Louisiana coastal area covers approximately 12,000 square miles. If we assume that one-fourth (3,000 square miles) of that area would be included in this program, and if we estimate that one elderly tour guide/part-time caretaker could (on average) be responsible for two square miles of natural habitat, then there would be roughly 1,500 people needed for the entire zone. 

If we assume that the average household size for this set is 1.5 (500 retirement-age couples, 500 single people), and if we assume a gross monthly rent (including utilities) of $700, then monthly expenses for housing these 1,500/1.5 = 1,000 households would be $700,000. Using an estimated 3% annual increase in rents (in line with recent year-on-year Consumer Price Index inflation) and a 5% discount rate, then the total housing costs, discounted over a decade, would be $73.48 million. 

Let’s assume that proposed participants would require a one-time training course in wetland management. If we peg that cost at $500, that adds an additional $750,000 to the total program bill. If we then assume that supplementary materials, such as a paddleboat for navigating around the bayou and tools for day-to-day management, are roughly $18,140 for each household over a ten-year period, then the cumulative program cost (housing, training, materials) would be roughly $92.37 million. 

A $92.4 million dollar program for ten years of educational and ecosystem enrichment by 1,500 elderly Americans (equivalent to a positions per budgeted $1 million ratio of 16.2) seems like a good deal. In fact, the actual cost of housing these residents would likely be lower. A disproportionately high percentage of Louisianans live in mobile homes, and these participants would simply require space on which to park their trailers. In addition, with more than 500,000 saltwater fishermen in the state and legions of recreational hunters, Louisiana has earned a deserved reputation as a "sportsman's paradise". As a result, there could be thousands of older Americans with experience tracking nutria and catching bass in southern Louisiana who would eagerly participate in this initiative with few hang-ups about swamp living. 

While land rights could be an issue, as much of coastal Louisiana is held by private landowners and energy corporations, we believe that active management of surface marshlands and bayous could coexist with existing economic activity in the region. Furthermore, it would have little (if any) impact on sub-surface mineral rights. We think that the coastal zone merits support for a proposed expansion of this conservation program.

The track record for catch shares in fishery management is abundantly clear: better science for managers and better access for fishermen. Certainly, “science vs. catch shares” is a false choice – catch shares provides the best chance to achieve high-powered science while getting fishermen back on the water and back to work. 
Here’s why.

Science in Fisheries Management

Irrespective of the type of management being used, federal law and regulations require that fishing levels be set to both prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, based on the best available scientific information. The total fishing mortality for all fishing sectors (commercial, charter boats and private anglers), including both landed and discarded dead fish, cannot by law exceed “overfishing limits” identified by fisheries scientists.

Two kinds of information are used to assess fish stock conditions and set the overfishing limits, fishery-independent data (collected directly by scientists to judge stock conditions), and fishery-dependent data (sampling of fish caught by fishermen, and affected by the fishing mechanism and regulations, typically using catch monitoring or catch accounting methods). Each type provides different, valuable information about what’s out there, and what is caught.

When there are lots of data of both types, and they are collected using robust methods, the uncertainty in the biology is greatly reduced and we have a much better understanding of what’s happening. When data are poor in one or both categories, there is a higher level of biological uncertainty, and less confidence that managers understand what’s really occurring in the fishery.

Under federal regulations, biological uncertainty must be subtracted from the overfishing limits to create lower “allowable biological catches” that cannot be exceeded by managers. 

In addition, there is often considerable uncertainty in estimating how a proposed management system will work to achieve allowable biological catches. Management uncertainty (how well management measures like bag limits, size limits, closures, or catch shares perform in actually hitting management targets) must be subtracted from allowable biological catches in setting “annual catch limits” for fisheries or fishing sectors.

Thus, all types of uncertainty must be accounted for. The greater the total uncertainty, the lower the allowable catch levels can be—and the less fish for fishermen to catch, for any given stock condition. 

Finally, the levels of fishing allowed for overfished stocks are also set based on how fast those stocks are able and required to rebuild. In nearly every case, the regional fishery management councils have allowed the longest legal rebuilding time, with the lowest allowable probability of actually rebuilding, given the biological uncertainty involved (50% probability, established in the courts and now by regulation), and the highest legal landings, even though that slows down rebuilding.

Catch Shares Improves Both Science and Catches

Initially, new catch shares fisheries operate with the same science-based catch limits that non-catch shares fisheries use, as explained above. However, because well-designed catch share programs also feature improved monitoring systems (including catch accounting) and improved and collaborative science, catch shares quickly outperform traditional approaches, both scientifically and in terms of access to fish for fishermen, for four specific reasons. 

1. Under catch shares, the quality and quantity of fishery-dependent data skyrockets, both improving estimates of overfishing levels and significantly reducing scientific uncertainty, thus raising allowable biological catches for any given actual stock condition.
2. Collaborative science means improved fishery-independent data, which means not only more accurate overfishing levels, but also reduced scientific uncertainty, and allowing further increases in allowable biological catches.
3. Under catch shares, compliance with allowable catch targets also skyrockets – with fishermen on average catching 5% below what they could have caught – reducing management uncertainty, and raising allowable catch levels.
4. High compliance rates with biologically-based targets means faster and more certain rebuilding (versus the underperformance of other approaches, where access to growing stocks is delayed), hastening the day when greater yields are allowed.

These are not just theoretical findings.

The Redstone (2007) review of catch share fisheries showed not only extraordinary compliance, but also that catch shares improved science (i.e. reduced uncertainty) dramatically. Collaborative science improved the available data sets, and increased monitoring ensured more accurate estimates of total fishing mortality (i.e. both bycatch and landings). Overall, uncertainty in biomass estimates was reduced from an average of ±50% to an average of ±25% within five years after catch shares were implemented. Especially dramatic improvements occurred in British Columbia halibut and sablefish, where uncertainty shifted from ±100% and ±75%, respectively, to ±50% and ±20%.

The often-quoted Essington (PNAS, 2009) analysis of catch shares fisheries reinforced these conclusions, showing markedly greater consistency under catch shares, and stating:

“More consistent and predictable fisheries may provide tangible benefits for improving the scientific advice in support of fisheries policies. Evaluation of management strategies [endnote omitted], for instance, can be made more precise if fisheries respond to management in predictable ways. One important way that the fisheries in the present study responded to catch shares was to sharply reduce interannual variability in the catch:quota ratio; catch share fisheries generally captured all of the annual catch quotas and avoided quota overages. Viable explanations for this response include the end to the race-to-fish, improved catch reporting systems, and changes in the incentive structure whereby individual fishing participants are penalized for exceeding their own individual quotas and may trade quotas within a fishing season [endnotes omitted]. The result is vastly reduced “implementation error,” one of the three sources of uncertainty that can contribute to fishery collapses [endnote omitted].

"Reduced variance in population status (e.g., exploitation rates) in catch share fisheries might also be an indication that management is more effective at maintaining stocks near their management reference points (i.e., they avoid large declines in abundance through excessive exploitation rates and adapt policies as environmental conditions change). This response may reflect the incentives that catch shares provide to participants for improving assessment and advocating for more conservative catch quotas [endnote omitted]; when management targets were specified, exploitation rates were always below the target levels following catch share implementation, and population biomass tended to move toward
target levels. The enhanced consistency in population biomass and exploitation rates is reflected in the landings data, which exhibited significantly reduced variability in the present study and in the study by Costello et al. [endnote omitted], suggesting that catch share fisheries may provide a more stable delivery of fishery products.”

Certainly having good science – collected both through improving fishery-dependent and fishery-independent means – is critical to reducing overall uncertainty and maximizing both rebuilding and allowable catches. We must support and invest in both aspects. 

But the bottom line is that fishery managers have a readily available tool in catch shares that can make a big difference in improving science and increasing the amount of fish available for fishermen to catch.

Mark Hitchcock is a Legal Fellow at EDF.

As a first-year attorney, my understanding of the intricacies of California water law is limited. Still, I am always bothered by the fact that the battles over Central Valley Project (“CVP”) exports regularly allude to the idea that water users have seen their contractual rights to Bay-Delta water decreased by environmental protection laws. In her recent op-ed proposing an Endangered Species Act rider, Senator Feinstein wrote about the percentage of a “contractual allocation” available to Central Valley users. The New York Times referenced percentages of “normal allocations,” and the Fresno Bee used that same term. Even the rebuttal letter questioning the wisdom of Senator Feinstein’s proposed rider sent by Representative George Miller and ten other members of Congress referred to water users receiving percentages of their “contract supply.”

In fact, there is no contractual right to any set or “normal” amount of CVP water. Exporters do not receive varying percentages of a set amount of water that they have continuing contractual rights to; it is the amount of water that they are contractually entitled to that varies from year to year.

CVP contracts specify maximum delivery amounts, and the contracts are generally explicit that that there is no right to receive that amount of water (emphasis added). The CVP contract between Westlands Water District and the United States, most recently renewed in 2006, authorizes delivery of up to 1,150,000 acre-feet of water per year if “consistent with all applicable State water rights permits, and licenses, Federal law, and subject to the provisions” in other parts of the contract (Article 3(a) at page 14). While the contract does note that that in the five years before the contract was signed an average of 756,700 acre-feet of water was made available to Westlands, the contract is explicit that “the likelihood of the Contractor actually receiving the amount of Project Water set out in [Article 3(a)] in any given Year is uncertain” (Article 3(b) at page 15) (emphasis added). It is clear that the contract does not contemplate percentages of “contractual” or “normal” allocations. Rather, the Bureau of Reclamation makes water allocations in each independent year based on detailed procedures that account for numerous conflicting concerns, and each year exporters receive that amount of water pursuant to the express terms of CVP contracts.

Westlands and other water users signed contracts to export water from the Bay-Delta, and those contracts explicitly address the uncertainty of water deliveries. Shouldn’t the discussion start with the terms of those contracts?

Archimedes said "Give me a place to stand, and I shall move the earth," when explaining the principle of levers.

Leverage is the big news about Walmart's announcement today. The company has committed to reducing 20 million metric tons of carbon pollution from its products lifecycle and supply chain over the next five years. That's equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 3.8 million cars.

So is Walmart moving the earth? No, not yet. But this is precisely the kind of innovative approach to reducing carbon pollution that we need right now. Environmental Defense Fund worked closely with Walmart to craft this goal and project that makes the most of what Walmart can uniquely do to cut carbon pollution across the globe.

This commitment is bold because:

• Walmart's supply chain is where the action is. It's the biggest possible lever that Walmart could bring to the table. Walmart will work with suppliers to reduce their emissions – which they otherwise might not do – resulting in positive ripple effects around the globe.
• It prioritizes the biggest opportunities. Walmart is looking at the products that create the most carbon emissions across their lifecycles – as well as products that are top sellers – and focusing on those first.
• It gets carbon pollution reductions now. There’s no waiting for the United States or the world to act.
• It will likely reach ten of thousands of companies around the globe – companies that would not be required to reduce emissions by national or international regulatory proposals but will greatly benefit from energy efficiency efforts.
• It adds to a drumbeat of clear messaging to suppliers from Walmart that they need to reduce carbon pollution. This commitment follows the Sustainability Index, Product Innovation work with Private Brands and other initiatives.
• It’s good for business and good for customers. This project is about Walmart and its suppliers working hand-in-hand to find ways to drive carbon and energy – and cost – out of the supply chain. Walmart customers care about America's energy future. They see tangible value from carbon reductions every time a lower carbon product costs less or uses dramatically less energy once they get it home.

Two kinds of change: Simple but big and transformational
In this project we will look at two different kinds of opportunities. The first opportunities are simple and relatively small changes that, when coupled with Walmart's scale, become big reductions. The other opportunities are more transformational, where we dive deep and engage an industry or consumers to fundamentally change products or their uses.

DVD packaging is an example of a simple change that adds up because of Walmart's scale.

A couple of years ago, Walmart asked one of its DVD suppliers – 20th Century Fox – to be a part of a pilot for our project. They made simple changes to make DVD packaging lighter, which cut energy use by 28% and reduced the lifecycle carbon emissions of DVDs sold to Walmart by about 25,000 tons. It had a big multiplier effect, too, because the lighter packages were also used on DVDs sold at other stores, and the change evolved from movies to video games and software too. Small change – big cumulative effect.

One of the other pilot projects Walmart tried was milk. This is an example of a project that falls into the category of industry transformation. Agriculture contributes 8% of the total U.S. carbon footprint, and the dairy industry is a significant contributor. At Walmart's request, several dairy suppliers analyzed the costs and emissions associated with a gallon of milk, from dairy farm to distribution center. By gathering and looking at the data, we found many opportunities to reduce emissions – at farms through changes in fertilizer and manure management, at dairy processing facilities through improved energy efficiency and even in the product itself, such as making milk shelf-stable.

Some of these changes are now underway at one of Walmart's suppliers, Dean Foods. We're estimating that this one supplier alone can reduce CO2 emissions by 300,000 tons overall by 2015. If these changes were adopted throughout the dairy industry, we estimate that we could see over 2 million tons of greenhouse gas reductions in the same period.

Will this be easy? To put it simply: No. Looking deep into the supply chain and across product lifecycles for carbon pollution reduction wins is uncharted territory. The cross-organizational team working on this project has spent months creating a detailed guidance document about what can count towards Walmart's goal, as well as how reductions should be quantified and confirmed. We're committed to making this project as transparent as possible and will be publicly releasing the guidance document within a month for anyone who wishes to comment or share ideas.

Walmart's action today won’t eliminate the need for a national and global cap on carbon pollution. These caps are absolutely necessary. We can't solve our pollution problems without them. But negotiations take time, and while the clock keeps ticking, carbon pollution keeps building up in our atmosphere. Today, Walmart has shown that is it not waiting to act to reduce global carbon pollution.

Read more about Walmart's commitment and view the webcast of the announcement.

Originally posted on Environmental Defense Fund's Innovation Exchange blog.

Tomorrow at Noon Eastern (11 AM Central) the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) will be holding a webinar on coastal community disaster preparedness in the southeastern United States. Headlining the presentation and discussion is Harvey Ruvin, the Clerk of Courts for Miami-Dade County and the Chair of the Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force.

With nearly 5.5 million residents, the Miami–Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach Metropolitan Area is the seventh largest in the United States. After the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, South Florida communities prioritized smart re-construction and home weatherization.

Miami-Dade County created a Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Working Group that brought together government officials, local institutions, and area businesses. All played significant roles in mitigating risks associated with life in an active hurricane zone. Their efforts, summarized in a 2008 report by the county government, offer a useful template for economic regeneration through smart, safe construction and community planning in other parts of the South.

Visit the event page to learn more and register now.

Whether they’re discussing economic activity in Kenner or stimulus spending in Kentwood, policymakers and analysts often reference employment ratios and economic multipliers to support their arguments. The two figures are mentioned interchangeably when discussing job creation, but there are subtle differences between them that we’ll look at in this post.

As many of you know, we have been working with Walmart for the past several years to measurably reduce its environmental impact in the areas of global warming, packaging, plastic bag waste, agriculture, toxic materials while leveraging the power of its supply chain here and in China.

Tomorrow, Walmart will announce a new commitment that we helped negotiate and develop. This goal aligns with one of Walmart’s core environmental goals – “to sell products that sustain our resources and the environment.”

EDF President Fred Krupp will join Walmart CEO Mike Duke in the announcement, which will be webcast live on Treehugger.com/Walmart at 11:00 am CST.

We’ll be live tweeting from the event at Twitter.com/EDFix

Following the announcement, Matt Kistler, senior vice president of Sustainability at Walmart, and Elizabeth Sturcken, managing director of Corporate Partnerships for Environmental Defense Fund, will hold a media conference call from 12:30-1:00 pm CST. Media can join the call at 1-800-862-9098 with conference ID 7WALMART.

Treehugger.com will also be hosting a live online forum at 12:15 pm CST, in which Andrew Hutson, Project Manager on EDF’s Walmart partnership team, will participate.

Fishermen are here in Washington, D.C. this week to express their concerns with fisheries today—and they have good reason to be frustrated. Even after decades of regulations aimed at restoring fisheries big problems still exist.

Today over 60 federal fish stocks are overfished or have overfishing occurring, resulting in declining catches and shrinking revenues. We must rebuild these fish populations to restore vibrant fishing communities, because economic recovery requires biological recovery. But, the key is picking the path that makes common sense.

Until recently, fishery managers didn’t see a good choice. Controlling overfishing has usually meant shrinking fishing seasons or even implementing closures, approaches that have serious economic impacts. For example, in the New England groundfish fishery significant reductions in resource abundance, allowable catches, and the number of active vessels reduced total fishing days by about half between 1995 to 2008 (Green, 2009; Thunberg, NEFSC, pers. comm.). Commercial and recreational fishermen in the Southeast U.S. are just beginning to feel the cost of a closure on red snapper. If better management options don’t surface soon, these impacts are expected to continue for the foreseeable future and grow as other regional fisheries close down too.

In contrast, catch share management can deliver increased prosperity, sustainability, and flexibility. Instead of pushing fishermen off the water to restore the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, fishery managers worked with commercial fishermen to develop a catch share program, which has increased dock-side prices, decreased bycatch and helped end overfishing (Steele 2008). Red snapper populations are now rebounding, meaning more fish for everyone, including recreational fishermen.

In the commercial Alaska halibut fishery, catch share management has extended the fishing season from less than a week to more than eight months each year, allowing fishermen to have more full-time work as well as flexibility in deciding when to fish (NOAA Fisheries 2009). These and other catch share programs stand out as the few bright spots in fisheries today. 

Transitioning to catch shares now is a necessary and worthwhile investment, because it can solve the overfishing problem, while boosting profits and improving jobs for fishermen. In addition, over time catch shares can reduce and stabilize the overall federal investment needed to support fishing jobs: catch shares shift some management costs to fishermen once they are economically-viable again. I believe there are solutions for recreational fishing too—solutions that help keep fishermen on the water through better scientific data and tools to make sure that the amount of fish caught stays within limits.

Fishermen continue to suffer from the collapse of fish stocks around the country. Putting off rebuilding is not the answer as it only continues the downward spiral that has been putting people out of work for decades. Instead Congress should invest in a durable solution that restores economic, cultural, and biological prosperity to our nation’s fishing communities.

Works Cited

Green, A. (2009, May 30). Move to redefine New England Fishing. The New York Times, pp. A18.

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Red Snapper Closure. Federal Register Vol. 74 Issue. 232. 12/02/2009.

NOAA Fisheries Service. (2009). Catch Share Spotlight No. 1: Alaska IFQ Halibut and Sablefish Program.

Steele, Phil. (2008, November 17). An Overview of the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper and Grouper/Tilefish IFQ Programs. Southeast Regional Office (SERO) National Marine Fisheries Services.

The L.A. Times produced a beautiful series on Brazil’s Amazon this week, saying what EDF has said all along: Protecting the Amazon not only preserves biodiversity — it also cuts global warming pollution faster and at lower cost than almost any other approach.

The destruction of tropical forests causes nearly a fifth of all global warming pollution, and as reporter Margot Roosevelt discovered, too often these forests are destroyed to make low-value products like charcoal.

It's exactly what EDF has been saying – we can't stop global warming without protecting tropical forests – and protecting forests is the fastest and lowest-cost way to curb warming. So, logically, it's the first thing we should do.

It's no surprise the L.A. Times would zoom in on this story. California businesses and citizens, like the people who live in the Amazon, stand to reap both health and economic benefits by preserving the forest.

That's because California's cap-and-trade market, set to begin in 2012, would let businesses buy tropical forest offsets to help meet their emission caps, using a policy approach called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation) pioneered in part by EDF.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger already signed agreements with several Amazon state governors to measure the carbon stored in their forests. (He hosted two Governors’ Global Climate Summit's in Los Angeles.)

Amazon deforestation fell to the lowest rate in more than a decade last year. By letting big polluters pay to keep deforestation down, we help protect this resource and curb global warming in the fastest, most cost-efficient way.

Last night, the Senate cleared a major hurdle towards passing a $15 billion jobs bill. This seems to be just the first of several jobs bills that the Senate will consider in the coming weeks and months. Among these bills we're keeping a close eye on the "Home Star" program. We strongly urge senators to press for resilience measures in the Home Star program, as they could create construction jobs and bolster flood mitigation in Louisiana and other coastal states.

Home Star, formerly known as "Cash for Caulkers", will soon be introduced on the Senate floor by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). The program aims to kill two birds with one stone. First, it will put construction workers, who are really bearing the brunt of job losses in this great recession, back to work installing energy retrofits. Second, it will boost energy efficiency in homes, which will lower household utility bills and curb greenhouse gas emissions.

At Restoration and Resilience, we think this a great start, but think that a huge opportunity is being missed: Home resilience.

Louisiana gets more than sixty inches of rain a year, is vulnerable to hurricanes and storm surge, and loses a football field of its coastal wetlands every half-hour. Green retrofits and home weatherization funds from a jobs bill should take on a whole new meaning in a place so shaped by water. With more than 150 million Americans living in coastal and river valley counties subject to periodic storm and flood disasters, we think that inclusion of flood mitigation measures would be a smart investment in safety and attract broad support across the country.

We're working with the SmarterSafer coalition to include resiliency and disaster mitigation work as part of Home Star's eligible activities. As contractors go in to weatherize homes, there is great opportunity to include storm and flood mitigation improvements in addition to energy efficiency repairs. In fact, many storm and flood mitigation measures can improve the benefits of efficiency upgrades with little extra work by trained contractors.

Can a jobs bill increase resilience in Louisiana? Yes, it can and it should.

Last month, I attended my first Solutions Lab in Durham, North Carolina. For those that don't know, EDF is hosting Solutions Labs around the country to bring together sustainability thought leaders from all walks of life. To be honest, I was a little skeptical that the "unconference"-style event (one where attendees choose the topics of discussion) would be a good use of my time. Fortunately, my concerns were unwarranted. Not only was this one of the best conferences I've attended in a long time, but it also tackled an issue that the sustainable business community has generally shied away from – CONSUMPTION. One of the participants noted that even if companies become 20% more efficient in their use of water or cut waste by a third, we'd still be worse off if those same companies produced more goods or built more stores. What is at the root of our need to consume? Some would say that in a very primal way we're hardwired to consume. Is it to attract more mates? To survive harsh winters? Or simply to look cool? No one really knows. But we do know that our existing economic system is structured to reward consumption of all kinds, whether good or bad. When our leaders talk about supporting "growth" or increases in GDP, they're really talking about increasing consumption. If there's an oil spill and millions are spent to clean it up, that's considered a good thing by our current measure of progress. So, it's not just a personal problem, but also a larger societal one. So, if we accept this idea that it's very difficult to get people to consume less (media and business call us "consumers" after all), what are our options? In their seminal book, Natural Capitalism, Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins discuss the need to move from products that have one useful life to products that are reused over and over and over again. The idea being that consumption doesn't matter as much if the energy and material embedded in our products can be constantly captured and reused. And yet, companies as a whole haven't made the switch to "closed loop" product design and manufacturing. They say it's too costly, or too difficult, or that consumers don't respond to these new product offerings. Interface Carpets, the poster child for closed-loop product design, has a service offering where they will take back old carpeting and turn it into new carpets. Unfortunately, they've had a heck of a time convincing customers that entering into a long-term leasing arrangement is good for their wallets. So, the CONSUMPTION CONUNDRUM is this: Is it realistic that consumers can be convinced to cut back? Should reducing consumption be a national policy goal? If not, what new business models can solve this monumental challenge? It's going to take a lot of great minds to solve this problem. Let's not be consumed by consumption.

If we want to fight climate change, improve our national security, boost our economy and create jobs, then we need the Senate to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill — and do it soon.

That's why EDAF has launched a campaign to get 100,000 letters for climate action.

We want to make sure your Senator knows that a climate bill is a priority for you. So we're collecting your letters and carrying them to Capitol Hill.

Our goal is 100,000 letters from across America. The good news is that we've already got 87,000. But we need your help to put us over the top.

Check out our web site for more details, updates, and tips to make writing easier. Then send us a letter, and spread the word to your friends and fellow climate action supporters. (If we get more than 100,000 letters, that's even better! We'll keep delivering them as long as you keep sending them).

Last week, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Duke Conference on Sustainable Business and Social Impact, at Duke University’s Fuqua Business School. Keynote speakers included Chad Holliday, former CEO and current Board Chairman of DuPont; Jonathan Greenblatt, founder of Ethos Water and Dina Powell, Global Head of Corporate Engagement at Goldman Sachs.

My panel, "Cleantech, make it, fund it," was part of the Finance breakout track. My co-panelists and I represented an interesting cross-section of the private equity/venture capital industry:

• Scott Starr, Director at groSolar – represented the early-stage investing view
• Blake Clifton, Principal at Abundant Power – represented middle market and project-financing
• Kirk Hourdajian, Project Manager at EDF – represented the later stage PE investment view

Our discussion topics ranged from cleantech investment trends to the role of government in the commercialization of new technologies and the role of non-profits in encouraging corporate involvement in environmental management.

While investment in early-stage technologies may rely on government subsidies to become cost competitive in the cleantech space, energy efficiency and other low-hanging fruit initiatives can provide tangible energy-saving opportunities in the near term.

In 2009, the cleantech industry saw a dramatic 30% decrease in venture funding, yet the energy efficiency and energy monitoring sectors saw an increase in funding during the same time period.

While government subsidies and climate change legislation would be a boon for the cleantech industry, EDF programs such as Climate Corps and Green Returns offer opportunities for corporations to save money and decrease their environmental footprint today.

According to recent article by GreenBiz, 2010 is the year for Energy Efficiency. With more awareness of and incentives for energy efficiency, companies and households alike are trying to find ways to reduce energy consumption and cut costs.

The goal of Environmental Defense Fund’s Innovation Exchange is to encourage widespread adoption of innovations and best practices that lead to tangible environmental results. To that end, we are experimenting with an energy efficiency wiki to foster commercial building energy efficiency practices.

What is it? A wiki is a website that allows the easy creation and editing of web pages and helps a community to collaborate around a topic – in this case corporate energy efficiency.

What’s it for? The purpose of the energy efficiency wiki is two-fold: 1) To serve as a starting point and reference tool for those wanting to learn how to identify, analyze and prioritize low-hanging fruit commercial building energy efficiency investments in their corporation and 2) To be a collaboration space for developing content about corporate energy efficiency.

What’s on there? The wiki includes an online version of our Climate Corps Handbook which serves as a reference manual for identifying, analyzing and prioritizing energy efficiency investments in commercial office buildings and data centers, focusing on lighting, HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning), office equipment, water heating and vehicles. Also available are FAQs and links to external resources.

Who can use it? While the current content of the wiki was created for our Climate Corps Program, it’s a useful resource for corporate sustainability, facility and green managers tasked with energy efficiency initiatives.

What can you do? Contribute your expertise by editing content and adding your own pages.

We hope the content of the wiki will help improve both your company and the planet. Let us know what you think!