Chris-Searles

Exploring Business's TruCosts

2012-03-07T05:44:00.002-08:00

Which industry's future looks the most troubled: Airlines or Beverages? A recent report released by international tax expert/auditor/advisor KPMG identifies the environmental costs, and subsequent near-term business risks, of 11 global industries: Telecommunications & Internet, Automobiles, Chemicals, Marine Transportation, Oil & Gas, Airlines, Mining & Minerals, Electricity, Food Producers, and Beverages. The first startling finding, "External environmental costs of the 11 sectors rose by 50 percent between 2002 and 2010"1 is underscored by the finding that matters most to business people, "Costs of environmental impacts are doubling every 14 years."

The report, Expect the Unexpected, (download executive summary here) begins with the premise "Global sustainability megaforces will affect the future of every business." The report seeks to analyze "dozens of forecasts" relating to the impacts of: climate change, energy & fuel, material resource scarcity, water scarcity, population growth, wealth, urbanization, food security, ecosystem decline, and deforestation on business's well-being. All of this is rather reminiscent of the pioneering eco work of Lester Brown, who's Earth Policy Institute promotes the systems view that 1+1+1 might = 5.

KPMG says,

"Trend projections prepared without consideration of the entire system of megaforces no longer provide an adequate basis for strategic business decisions."

thus arriving at the following Risk and Readiness Matrix (click to enlarge):

KPMG, "Without action and planning for the complex future that lies ahead, risks will multiply and opportunities will be lost." The study recommends these sectors work with government and civil society to develop stronger, more coherent, green policies, which "address both how and which goods and services are produced." Or else? Information for the report was provided by environmental data experts TruCost.

###

1. 50% increase "from US$566 billion to US$854 billion" -- My blog sourced from a press release/blog on Environmental Leader.

"Worst Tornado Outbreak in US History"

2012-03-04T06:20:00.002-08:00

Last Friday's tornado outbreak boggles the mind. Some are calling it the worst tornado day in US history. Economic devastation (and some death) struck millions of Americans via hail, high winds, and tornadoes from as far south as Georgia to as far north as Illinois. I have an 83 year old Aunt in Tennessee who spent her week on high alert, ready to climb into her bathtub for shelter as storms swirled around her home on Feb. 28, Feb. 29, Mar. 1, and Friday Mar. 2.

3/2/11 -- "There were 86 tornadoes reported today, normally there are 87 tornadoes during March this time of year." Chief Meteorologist Mark Murray, 6pm news, KVUE Austin.

For one thing, this is exactly the kind of activity predicted by the climate change books I read ten years ago. This trauma and awe is actually part of what was projected to occur this decade under the worst case, highest emissions scenarios. (During the 2000's, climate scientists often said we had until 2010 to "take serious action" if we are to avoid serious problems. We have yet to take serious action.) I mean, it was just a little over two years ago Thomas Friedman tried to coin the term "global weirding" to convey what climate scientists are trying to tell us is looming if our economy doesn't stop burning les combustibles fossiles. According to their computer models, the amount of greenhouse gasses we're emitting everyday has put our planet over critical thresholds. And, life as we know it in 2012 is making these problems worse. And, 2011's epidemic of destructive weather will not be the last. And... yes, yes, you know the rest: Unless we reverse course (stop burning fossil fuels, and find ways to reduce GHG concentrations in our atmosphere) -- violent weather, radical shifts in the distribution of the planet's precipitation (aka. drought and flooding), and the end of Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring seasonal cycle reliability -- will become our way of life.1 In short, we're getting a late start on managing this problem, but the longer we wait the more "weather" we have in store.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
Severe Weather Summary 2012.

Extreme weather phenomena are happening all over the world; the number of events is disturbing, too. For instance, bere in the US more than 120 tornadoes had already occurred this year before Friday March 3rd, that's 50% more than the historical norm. A few press clippings about this week's tornado outbreak:

"As of Friday morning, the severe storm risk area covered an estimated 162 million people, or 56 percent of the United States, according to weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Storm Prediction Center received 311 reports of severe weather Friday, including 48 reported tornadoes and a few reported fatalities. This massive storm system also spawned deadly tornadoes on Leap Day, which raked Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee. The severe storms killed at least 12 people and included a strong EF-4 twister in Harrisburg, Ill., a rarity for February." -- Why So Many Tornadoes Are Striking the US, Yahoo!/LiveScience.

Unusually high heat (70/80sF) and warm winds met with

seasonal cold (30s/40s) to create atmospheric chaos this week.

"Friday, March 2, 2012 may be known as one of the worst tornado outbreak for early March on record. Eighty sightings of tornadoes were reported between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. Friday. Friday's outbreak could include more tornadoes in one day than typically occur over the entire month of March in the United States." The Science Behind the Tornado Outbreak, Accuweather.

"Emergency crews desperately searched for survivors Saturday after a violent wave of Midwest and Southern storms flattened some rural communities..." Storms demolish small towns in Indiana, Kentucky; 38 dead. Associated Press

Home video of massive tornado as it tears through neighborhood in Henryville, Indiana, CNN.

"Calm weather gave dazed residents of storm-wracked towns a respite early on Sunday as they dug out from a chain of tornadoes that cut a swath of destruction from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, killing at least 39 people." Calm weather a respite in tornado zone where 39 died, Reuters.

Extreme Weather 2012 photo gallery, Christian Science Monitor.

###

1. After last summer's devastating drought in Texas and this summer looking at least as harsh, I'll go on record saying I expect we'll have extremely high temperatures down here in Texas April thru October, this year.

Obama Campaigning on Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies

2012-03-03T15:13:00.000-08:00

“You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people. You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.”

Obama displays a chart about declining oil use at

a campaign stop in New Hampshire last week.

I find Obama's sudden stance against fossil fuel subsidization incredibly compelling. Reason #1 - we need a clean energy future today. Reason #2 - American Oil & Gas have the profits thing wired. Your gas prices are going up, but that ain't cause the Oil & Gas industry needs money. No, no, no. According to the Financial Times, America's top Oil & Gas companies are actually some of the world's most profitable companies. And that's not just true today. With minimal digging I've discovered that ExxonMobil has been the world's #1 most profitable company most of the last 10 years, with Chevron consistently in the global top 10 and Conocco generally in the top 50. There's more to this story.

Recent research (by me) shows Exxon, Mobil, Gulf Oil, Amoco, Texaco, Shell Oil, ChevronTexaco, and their various cousins, competitors and mergers have all consistently been on the Fortune 500's Top 20 Wealthiest American Companies since at least 1955, when Fortune started the list. Bullet point: Exxon, was America's #2 wealthiest company from 1955 to 1974, after General Motors. Then in 1975 Exxon finally made it to the #1 spot. Apparently one result of the US oil shock of 1973 was Exxon and the rest of the O&G industry made more money. Exxon slipped quietly into 1st place 1975 - 77. So while you or your relatives were scouring the country for a simple tank of gas, and President Carter was telling America to "put on a sweater," the Oil & Gas industry was purchasing bigger houses and blinger vacations.

Moreover, the Fortune list shows on average +60% of America's Top 20 Companies are either oil & gas specific or oil & gas dependent, e.g. Ford, Goodyear Tire, Boeing, since 1955. Not food, not electricity, not water, or entertainment or technology or media ... Oil.

To Obama's point: US Oil & Gas has been getting roughly 4x more federal tax payer subsidization than all other American energy industries since 1950. ... Since at least 1950?... To the everyman concern: Why are our gas prices going up even as the oil & gas industry gets the lion's share of subsidization, doesn't pay for pollution, imports less fuel to the United States, and continues increasing profits while earning less actual revenue? Why?

###

Chicago Quits Coal

2012-03-01T12:53:00.000-08:00

"Yesterday was a big day for clean air. For nearly 100 years, Edison International’s Fisk and Crawford coal plants have loomed over the City of Chicago... but the people of Chicago fought back -- and won. That’s right, the city of Chicago has quit coal!"

That's how the most remarkable email announcement I've ever read begins, from Greenpeace campaigner Kelly Mitchell. Quitting coal, especially in a metropolitan area this size, means making a significant financial commitment to cleaner air, water, unborn children, human health, climate change, and the environment et al. This is historic. But what's the timeline? Kelly continues,

"The Fisk coal plant will shut down in 2012 and the Crawford coal plant will shut down by 2014."

Holy Better-World-Now. According to The NAACP, Crawford is the worst environmental justice offender in the United States and Fisk is #3. Final play? Mayor Rahm Emmanuel lowered the boom last week and the plant's owners quickly responded. Progress Chicago calls this, "a milestone for residents in the moderate-income, predominantly Latino neighborhoods." But wait, there's more from Kelly,

"And as if we didn’t already have enough to be excited about with the victory in Chicago, we had ANOTHER victory for the people of Pennsylvania and Ohio. GenOn announced that they will close seven coal plants..."

So, in short, this is awesome. And grassroots led. You probably know coal plants are the #1 creators of greenhouse gasses, mercury pollution, loads of carcinogenic compounds, and a list of other toxic outputs too long to go into. Thank you and congrats to everyone involved. I can't wait to see what comes next. Here's a 6 min video from Greenpeace's Chicago campaign:

###

Climate Action that Won't Hurt the Economy

2012-02-28T06:56:00.006-08:00

Question: What kind of large-scale, super meaningful, structural changes can we take on to protect the planet from climate change. Answer? All of it, apparently. According to Dr. Kristen Sheeran, executive director of Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3), a national network of more than 200 economists researching active environmental protection, it's totally affordable. I found this statement from a 2009 interview... 2009!

"The good news on the climate front is that when you look at what it will cost, what it will take to prevent climate change, to get us out of the risky territory where we face the potential for catastrophic damages, credible studies find that while it will be a significant investment it is well within the range of what most nations -- including our own, can afford.

"Now this stands in sharp contrast to a lot of studies that get picked up and reported about in the media. But when you actually look at everything that's been done on this subject, and there is so much -- between think tanks, and government agencies, and universities, what you find is there are just a few outlier studies that get a disproportionate amount of attention. And perhaps not surprisingly a lot of these studies are proprietary studies, they're done by consultants for groups who are very clear in their intent to defeat climate legislation. So for example there's one that's done by a group called Charles River Associates for the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. This study is proprietary, their model is proprietary, nobody really knows what goes into it."

What does Sheeran say about claims that significant emissions reductions would be damaging to US economic growth?

"It's junk economics, really. And what it generates are results that scare people, that say climate change prevention will destroy jobs, will slow economic growth to the point where US livelihoods are diminished, the quality of life in the US is diminished. There's just no credible evidence to support that."

Dr. Sheeran, Exec. Dir.
Economics for Equity and the Environment (E3)

Sheeran made this statement via podcast (download here or here), promoting her organization's release of the first independent economic report arguing the world can easily afford policies which lower carbon concentration, "The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization," October 2009. From the report (truncated),

"A number of economic analyses... suggest that more ambitious targets and quicker action make good economic sense. It has not become impossibly expensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable future...We cannot afford a little climate policy, half-measures that would leave us all vulnerable to the immense risks of an increasingly destructive climate. Because the status quo is not sustainable, the most economical choice is to change, as quickly, cost-effectively, and comprehensively as possible. This study looks at both sides of the equation, beginning with the worsening news about climate risks (i.e., the costs of inaction), then turning to the costs of an adequate response."

See more E3 publications.
Learn more about Dr. Sheeran.

Follow Sheeran's blog.

###

"Born to be Hypocrites"

2012-02-25T08:07:00.003-08:00

The title above refers to a dawning social science, which explores the psychological roots of our moral identities. Rising star Jonathan Haidt's 2008 talk, "The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives" (video below) has over 1,000,000 views and "pinpoints the moral values liberals and conservatives tend to honor most." His book, "The Righteous Mind" is due out March 13.

Haidt got my attention via a recent Bill Moyers segment, "Jonathan Haidt Explains Our Contentious Culture." Haidt's social psych research at the University of Virginia found "Liberals misunderstand Conservatives more than the other way around." He continues (from the Moyers segment),

"Conservatives see self sufficiency as a profound moral value for individuals, Liberals are more focused on a public code of care and equity.. In analyzing any social situation you really have to understand moral psychology... When there are moral divisions within a society and no external attack, the natural tribalism of human beings can really ramp up. That's where we are now... Let's just look with open eyes at our nature... Morality makes us do things that we think are good, but it also makes us do things that are bad... It's all part of our judgmental, critical, hypercritical nature. We are all born to be hypocrites, that's part of the design."

Visit Haidt's webpage to learn more.

###

Rising Oil Prices Blamed on Speculators

2012-02-20T11:15:00.001-08:00

I certainly can't explain fuel market speculating, but it's interesting to note that this year's efforts to re-employ Americans will probably stall if/when gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon. Recently Stanford University, Rice University, the University of Massachusetts, and others blamed 2008's painfully high gas prices on market speculators. Those academic researchers were joined by the US government's own Commodity Futures Trading Commission in blaming speculating -- not supply & demand, for 2008's high prices.

What if today's gasoline pricing isn't directly related to supply & demand? Last week Bloomberg BusinessWeek ran an article, "Rising Gas Prices: Not Demand Driven." The article begins by pointing out demand for oil and gas in America hasn't been this low since 1997 (15 years). All this is interesting and somewhat eerie, as I've recently been following the oil & gas industry and learned:

Exxon & Conocco are doing Great
US Oil & Gas production is doing Great, too
America's major O&G retailers are seriously profitable
American O&G receives the bulk of US government subsidization
O&G looks to be, perhaps, the wealthiest industry in the world

Rising prices for American consumers during an era of high unemployment -- really??? Isn't everyone, except the oil and gas industry, hurt by this?

'New Budget Would Add 2.8M American Jobs'

2012-02-20T03:52:00.000-08:00

The nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, in its analysis of President Obama's newest budget, announced last week "we find that the president’s job creation proposals would create 1.5 million jobs in fiscal year 2012 and 1.3 million jobs in fiscal year 2013 (through Sept. 2013)." EPI continues, "In his proposed budget, the president includes a $350 billion jobs package that would have an immediate positive impact on the economy and jobs. About 85 percent ($300 billion) of the package would hit the economy in the next year and a half." Working from the Congressional Budget Office's projections, EPI projects unemployment would fall 0.5% this year to remain at around 8.3%. Obama's high line priorities:

$95 billion in the payroll tax cuts (to employees)
$80 billion in other business tax cuts (including a $25 billion hiring credit)
$45 billion in emergency unemployment benefit extensions
$25 billion in transportation infrastructure investments ($50 billion over ten years)
$20 billion in school facility repair and modernization
$30 billion in retaining or rehiring teachers and first responders
$25 billion miscellaneous neighborhood stabilization, job training, energy efficiency, VA conservation jobs, infrastructure bank, and manufacturing incentives

Which leads to the fundamental point of this blog: Are we environmentalists missing the biggest opportunity of our lives? Isn't it time for environmentalists to focus on up-dating the American economy? There is no rebuilding of our American economic infrastructure without solving environmental problems, too. Shouldn't Americans, in general, strive to lead the world by ecologizing every economic endeavor, quantifying winners and losers according to financial, social, and environmental criteria, and elevating policy choices accordingly?

According to EPI, Obama's Recovery Act has "created or saved over 1,000,000 jobs" in just two years since its enactment, and is "laying a foundation for the development of a 21st century green economy in the United States." Want more good news? 67% of Republicans oppose fossil fuel subsidies, red-state Texans are becoming concerned about drought, fire, health, safety, local economies and their future, Brad Pitt is openly criticizing the world's transportation paradigm, businesses everywhere are cutting costs through resource efficiency. The green movement today is effectively mainstream, all about costs, fairness, security, and self-interest. There are metrics out there a lot of people would like to know about.

Environmentalists MUST seize this moment to begin reworking the economy. Light bulbs, polar bears and high morals won't be enough to solve environmental problems at scale. We have enormous, hairy scary stuff to deal with and nothing but tough roads ahead. Whether we environmentalists are to achieve people-saving change (some call it planet-saving) or watch as today's status quo steamrolls long term well being, change ain't gonna be easy. But recent research, by organizations such as the American Lung Association, suggests Americans are aware and reaching a tipping point.

So listen-up enviro friends: In matters of solving environmental problems let's follow the money. How do American's spend their money? Generally on disposable, non-recycleable, energy intensive, fossil-fuel-based, globally sourced, unsustainably harvested, occasionally toxic, non-organic: foods, goods, and services. (When will that stop?) How does our economy grow? Through resource intensive harvesting above natural limits, by socializing the costs of environmental damage in an astonishingly myriad number of ways, and by sprawling ever outward. What kinds of impacts are these practices having on costs, fairness, security, and self-interest? What if we spent our money more sustainably? What if we stopped investing in ecologically unsustainable industries and focused on growing jobs in the opposite manner?

We need a new private market.

Politically it's good vs. evil, no matter what your persuasion is. Obama's last jobs package was beaten down by a filibuster. Obama's new budget has been endorsed by the Center for American Progress.

###

Obama's historic "stop Oil subsidies"

2012-02-19T08:00:00.000-08:00

Talking to an environmentalist friend this week, it seems many may have missed the President's historic call, during his State of the Union address, Jan. 24, 2012, to "end oil subsidies" (video below). So here's a breakdown of the roughly six minute focus from that speech on "proving we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy" and ending subsidization of America's wealthiest industry.**

The slides below were produced by the White House as part of a newly launched, "enhanced" YouTube format for government video/media. Click images to enlarge.

Obama's profit slide tells a powerful story.

Bipartisan support for developing "every available source of American energy."

Mixed support for "ending oil subsidies."

See a complete gallery of White House-created images from the points below here.

Timestamps
26:00 - Expand incentives for innovation & business development
27:30 - American made energy
27:50 - Obama opening +75% of domestic Oil & Gas drilling
28:00 - American Oil production highest in 8 years, and …
28:30 - Oil isn't enough, "We need to develop every available source of American energy"
28:50 - We have enough (shale) Natural Gas for nearly 100 years
29:25 - America will develop NG w/o putting Citizens at risk
29:45 - Gov support is critical in helping new energy get off the ground
30:15 - Obama's investments have nearly 2x'd renewable energy use & jobs last 3 years
31:20 - "I will not walk away from the promise of Clean Energy"
31:53 - "We've subsidized Oil companies for a century, that's long enough"
32:20 - We can spur new energy innovations with new incentives
32:45 - Obama allowing clean energy development on public lands
33:05 - Dept. of Defense making a huge commitment to clean energy
33:30 - On energy efficiency, Congress should promote $100B for business savings next 10 years
34:00 - Building new energy just one part of repairing American infrastructure
35:14 - Do some nation building, right here at home

White House's "Enhanced" video:

**More on Oil & Gas wealth:
From a global perspective.
From US/domestic perspective.
Recent profits for ExxonMobil and ConoccoPhillips.
10 year profits for the top five suppliers to the US market.

###

Texas Drought 2012 - An Update from the Professionals

2012-02-15T07:41:00.000-08:00

This blog, by state of Texas climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, summarizes reports made during a day long forum of water related professionals, Monday. “Texas Drought 2012 — Are We Prepared?" was presented by The University of Texas’s new Center for Integrated Earth System Science. "The speakers provided a broad overview and update of the drought, its impacts, agency responses, and issues raised by the drought." (Nielsen-Gammon)

A few highlights:

Texas Water Development Board -- "The number of water suppliers with water restrictions in place continues to increase despite the recent rains."

Texas Division of Emergency Management -- "There are 100-200 systems in Texas that have surface water only and are upstream of a reservoir. The cost of trucking in water to (a small community, population 6000) would be over $60,000/day.
TDEM -- "Loss of water supplies for power generation from reservoirs that are already historically low would cause rolling blackouts at a minimum. Vulnerability of industrial and chemical plants is in the process of being assessed."
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority -- "The reconstruction of June Palmer Drought Severity Index goes back to 1500 (using bald cypress tree ring data). The worst extended drought (3-10 years) in central Texas was in 1708-1717, peaking in 1716. The 1950s drought of record shows up as the third-worst extended drought, behind the one listed above and the pre-Civil War drought. In West Texas, the 1950s drought is as bad or worse than previous tree-ring droughts."
San Antonio Water System -- "Desalinization of seawater is an expensive and energy-intensive alternative, and will be more practical for San Antonio when technology is developed to allow such plants to be started up and shut down on a seasonal basis."
City of Austin -- "Drought diminishes ecosystem services (the current term for aspects of the ecosystem that are economically or aesthetically valuable), affecting water quality (reduced dilution of pollutants, concentrated nutrients and algal blooms), quality and extent of aquatic ecosystems, fire danger along newly-dried streambeds. New natural ways of treating water are threatened as well, such as drying up of ponds and failure of liners,and marsh filtration systems losing vegetation. Taking serious action on water supplies during drought crises is not the best way of dealing with long-term problems, but it seems to be the only way serious action happens."

See John N-G's full blog here.

US Drought Monitor, Feb. 2, 2012 image of TX.

Austin, San Antonio, Lubbock, Laredo, Brownsville, Corpus Christi,
S. Padre Island, currently under the highest drought stress.

Click to enlarge.

How Much do US Senators cost?

2012-02-13T05:01:00.000-08:00

What's perhaps most amazing about today's Oil & Gas lobbying is how little the industry spends in Washington, given its wealth and profit margins. On Jan. 30 the Keystone XL Pipeline was (re-)introduced to the US federal government as a Congressional issue. This time, however, the vote was co-sponsored by 44 US Senators. That's a lot of Senators.

But PriceofOil.org tells us these US Senators have received $22.3 million in campaign contributions from O & G companies since 1989. That averages out over the last 22 years to just $23,037.19 per Senator, per year.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would transfer +2 Trillion barrels worth of Bitumen crude from Alberta, Canada to America's refineries region (Houston / Louisiana area). The resource has 8x more oil than Saudi Arabia and is 1.5x more polluting per gallon. In 2011, Exxon earned about $5 million profit, per hour (see post below).

##

ExxonMobil's record profits, 2011

2012-02-12T07:16:00.000-08:00

via ThinkProgress.org --

"ExxonMobil had the largest profits of the Big Five oil companies in 2011, raking in $41.1 billion for the year. This 35 percent jump from last year is driven in large part by record-high oil prices... Here are a few other facts about ExxonMobil:

Exxon’s $41.1 billion in 2011 profit translates into nearly $5 million in profit every hour.

Stock buybacks for (2011) were $ 21.60 billion, equivalent to 53 percent of total 2011 profit.

Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American.

The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax. The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States.

Exxon spent nearly $13 million on lobbying expenditures in 2011. The company gave nearly another $900,000 in federal campaign contributions.

Exxon is drawing out a legal battle for damages on a spill from 22 years ago. Exxon hasn’t paid $92 million in cleanup for the devastating Valdez Alaskan oil spill. In its Sept. 30 court filing, Exxon argued the damages it agreed to pay only covers “restoration” and not additional “clean-up.”

Together with Chevron, Shell, and BP — ExxonMobil reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees between 2005 and 2010."

See ThinkProgress's full blog here.

More Evidence of "Boom Time" for US Oil & Gas

2012-02-12T06:46:00.000-08:00

"I wonder whether it’s sunk in to most Americans just how historic the changes going on right now in oil production in the United States really are (see Figure 1)," economist/blogger Blake Clayton in his recent blog for the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. What's he talking about? 2011's radical trend in the US Oil & Gas business: we're exporting more than we're importing. USA Today calls it a "mini oil boom."

Figure 1. U.S. Net Imports of Petroleum Products (1993–2011)

I have extended family in East Texas. One of the friendliest neighbors there, a 65 year old man, came out of retirement eight months ago to take a full time job to driving 2 hours each way to work five 12 hour shifts a week. What causes a 65 year old man to work 14 hours a day? In this case it ain't desperation, he says the money is too good. (Think strong six figures.) He's a an oil refinery safety manger in Beaumont, TX. The Texas oil & gas refinery industry is going bonkers, scaling up for a big future -- which the media is apparently not covering. Mr. Neighbor says the O & G refineries in this area are expanding so aggressively they've got guys working around the clock, 12 on 12 hour shifts. He says there's nowhere to stay overnight, rent, or live in the Texas refinery zone of Beaumont/Port Arthur (see map below), and he says one hour of his commute each day is spent trying to get "from one end of the parking lot to the other" at the plant in Beaumont.

Here's What Refineries Look Like

Here's a Map of Texas/Louisiana O&G Refineries 2011 (by me)

Map data, via EIA, shows total production per town and rank of refineries

in each town out of America's top 100 O&G refineries.

Click to enlarge.

"How Smart Economics Can Save the World"

2012-02-09T16:51:00.001-08:00

Gernot Wagner recently featured in a 30 minute podcast interview.

Interviewer: "One person eating less meat, or deciding to get a Prius instead of an SUV, or bring a reusable bag to the grocery store -- but if everyone did it, wouldn't that make a difference?"

Wagner: "Kind of. The problem there is ... you need to scale that up. The question is how do you do that? How do you get a Billion people to recycle? That's the first question. And then, even if you did get a Billion people to recycle -- would it make a difference? The surprising answer in many ways is No. Not even that would be enough."

Gernot is promoting his new book, "But Will the Planet Notice."

Top 5 Oil Companies, $1 Trillion Profit, 2001 - 2011

2012-02-08T15:34:00.000-08:00

I'm recommending this article by Daniel J. Weiss, Jackie Weidman, Rebecca Leber, published Feb. 8, 2012. Original title: Big Oil’s Banner Year: Higher Prices, Record Profits, Less Oil. In short, things are better than ever for Oil & Gas. Here's a look at the world's Top 5 (who also happen to be 5 of the world's wealthiest companies):

Profits 2010 / 2011:
--> ExxonMobil (Texas) $31B / $41B
--> Shell (Netherlands) $20B / $31B
--> Chevron (California) $19B / $27B
--> BP (United Kingdom) $(4)B / $26B
--> ConocoPhilips (Texas) $11B / $12B

Oil Production 2010 / 2011 in million barrels per day
--> ExxonMobil (Texas) 4.4 / 4.5
--> Shell (Netherlands) 3.3 / 3.2
--> Chevron (California) 2.8 / 2.7
--> BP (United Kingdom) 3.8 / 3.5
--> ConocoPhilips (Texas) 1.9 / 1.7

Click to enlarge.

One highlight from the article is this chart -- a nice compliment to my blog comparing Oil & Gas Company profits (per capita) to the rest of the world's wealthiest private companies. It also lends credence to Obama's recent declaration that it's time to end oil subsidies and makes the fact that US Oil & Gas companies received nearly 4x more incentive dollars 1950-2010 than any other US energy sector (including: natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, renewables, and geothermal) even less flattering.

The Weiss/Weidman/Leber article is definitive. Today's "Big Oil" is producing less, raising prices, earning record profits, reinvesting in its own company stock, and earning a 30:1 return on its D.C. tax break lobbying. Another slide:

A couple of eye-popping quotes:

ExxonMobil, the most profitable of the big five, paid an effective tax rate of 17.6 percent (from 2008–2010 data), which is 3 percent less than what the average American family paid. But Exxon and other oil companies that receive these tax breaks do not pass benefits on to consumers.
Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP combined to reduce their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that time.

###

How does the Oil & Gas Industry compare to the rest of the world, in terms of pure wealth? See the numbers.

Brad Pitt questions the Auto Industry

2012-02-07T07:19:00.000-08:00

Recently Brad Pitt compared one of the central themes of Moneyball, his Academy Award nominated best actor performance, to the auto industry. In Moneyball, Pitt's character questions and rethinks 150 years of baseball know-how (from the video @ 2:10),

"I equate it to the automobile. If we invented the automobile today, would we say -- I Know, we'll run it on a finite fossil fuel, we'll export a 1/2 Trillion dollars of our GDP, then spend 100's of millions of dollars to protect that interest, and it'll pollute the environment!"

The Oscars are Sunday, Feb 26 on ABC.

Whitehouse.gov launches "enhanced" YouTube format

2012-02-04T08:09:00.000-08:00

Call it propaganda if you choose, but the government of the United States of America has recently started broadcasting via YouTube in an "enhanced" split screen format. The enhanced format provides charts, graphs and other visualizations in tandem with live speeches. Here's the trial run, Obama's recent State of the Union address:

Is Water Too Cheap?

2012-02-04T06:16:00.000-08:00

Central Texas's largest newspaper ran "Rethinking Water" as it's front page feature last Sunday, a first. The article begins, "Is water too cheap?" Some highlights:

"Watering lawns will seem as crazy as throwing diamonds on our lawns; we're throwing the world's most important resource - clean drinking water - on the ground."

Water delivery truck.

The Pedernales River, July 2011, which feeds reservoirs northwest of Austin.

"Water right now is underpriced."

"For most of our recent history, we just treated (water) as if we had an unlimited supply of it. We're finding to our dismay that that's not true."

"Building water infrastructure under emergency situations is definitely not cheap..."

The cheapest strategy in the Texas Water Development Board's 2012 water plan is conservation, which would account for 24 percent of the new supply by 2060; the costliest, desalination, would account for about 3.4 percent of the new supply.

According to LakeLevels.info Austin's Lake Travis* is 54' below normal today, the second emptiest lake in the entire state. And the New York Times reported yesterday that Spicewood Beach, a small lake front community about 35 miles northwest of Austin, is out of water. Here's what the Colorado River looks like there:

*"More than one million Texans depend on the finite resources of the Colorado River and its Highland Lakes, including Lake Travis, as their primary source of drinking water, and more than 60,000 people depend on water from the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer." -- LCRA.

Oil & Gas, the World's Wealthiest Industry

2012-02-02T08:49:00.000-08:00

How Rich is the Oil & Gas Industry? As a response to Obama's recent announcement that it's time for America to "end oil subsidies," I did the math on a simplification of that question. I took the very reputable Financial Times' Global 500 2011, a list of the world's 500 most valuable private companies at the end of 2010 published in July of 2011, and asked a few questions.¹

Here are my core questions. What percentage of the world's wealthiest private companies belong to the oil & gas industry? How much total $$ (moola) were those O & G companies worth at the end of fiscal 2010? What percentage of their wealth is the total 500? I ask these questions because I have a hunch that transitioning off a fossil fuel economy is a much bigger job than we enviros have yet realized. We tend to paint the picture as being ethical, about protecting human health, the climate, and Creation itself. "How could those fossil companies be so insensitive?"

But Exxon's making record profits these days -- year after year. Is that good? If Exxon's success is indicative of anything it's that a lot of folks in Oil and Gas are enjoying a gold rush. Big big big. And we enviros need them to just stop. Asking them to turn away from all this success is kind of like asking the New York Yankees during a 100 year winning streak to become a basketball team, isnt' it?

I'm serious.

Cutting to the chase:

54 of the world's wealthiest 500 companies 2010 were in the Oil & Gas industry.²
These 54 companies had a combined market value of $4.17 Trillion.³
Conclusion: Out of the world's wealthiest 500 companies 15.9% of wealth belonged to Oil & Gas at the end of 2010.

But allow me to add a little more detail. Oil & Gas -- by far the wealthiest sector per capita (per company) on the entire list, placed five companies in the world's wealthiest private companies TOP 10 LIST: #1, ExxonMobil (USA), #2 PetroChina, #5 PetroBras (Brazil), #8 Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands), #9 Chevron (USA). For this particular year, the Oil & Gas sector earned $7.234 Billion on average per company. Compare that to the average per company earnings in other wealthiest sectors: "Software & Hardware" earned an average of $4.883 Billion per company, "Banks" sector $4.577 B per company, "Mining" $4.489 B per company.

Going one further -- the 2006 Financial Times list of valuations for non-public (government-owned) companies shows Saudi Aramco to be worth more than twice as much as ExxonMobil in 2010. More impressively, 9 of the world's top 10 wealthiest "non-public" companies are Oil & Gas producers, too. These 9 non-public companies show a combined market valuation of nearly $3 Trillion. That's +7 Trillion, speaking loosely, for Oil & Gas producers globally... Global GDP at the end of 2010 was around $63 Trillion, making global oil & gas companies worth something like 11% of global GDP.

Back to the point -- It's interesting to note that America's Oil & Gas companies, leading the private sector in both profits and overall wealth, complain they cannot afford to pay for the pollution their products and services generate and need government assistance just to continue operating.

####

Broader analysis on all this soon, plus copies of my data/spreadsheets.⁴
Please stay tuned, thanks.

Notes
1) Note that everything you read from here on is based on that "top 500" list only.
2) My term, "Oil & Gas Industry" here includes Oil & Gas Producers and Oil and Gas Service and Equipment Providers, as delineated by the Financial Times. Note also that America's Oil & Gas Industry recv'd 44% of total subsidization monies, 1950-2010, about 4xs more than any other energy type, and that many Republicans voters support ending fossil fuel subsidization.
3) $4,170,672,400,000.00 to be exact.
4) The Financial Times 2011 Top 500 List is not yet available.

How Hot will Austin Get?

2012-02-01T20:05:00.000-08:00

It's Feb 1st and I'm driving around with my A/C on. According to my phone the high today in Austin, TX today will be 77F.¹ If you look at the historical record of Austin's high and low temperatures maybe that's not so bad. On Jan 30, 1971 it was 90F. The record for today was set in 1963 at 83F. Austin's low temperatures are impressive too: Feb 1, 1951 it was 12F. In 1949 it was -2F on Jan 30.

But the average temperature range for Austin this time of year is between 62 and 40. Moreover, note that MOST of the United States has "escaped winter" thus far this year. January 2012 was, "statistically (speaking), an extremely off the charts heat wave for the whole month for most of the country." This January was the 2nd most heat record breaking month out of the last 12, second only to August 2011. And journalists are not asking climate scientists "is there a connection?"

"Heat Ratios" = number of record breaking days vs. total days in a month.
(Click images to enlarge.)

Temperature averages, decade on decade.

But surely the press will start talking to climate scientists soon? As the world's fossil fuel industries boom² and climate scientists cautiously advise that our current weather/climate situation looks an awful lot like the scary, unsustainable scenario environmentalists like me are afraid of (as in the lots of "change" this century scenario), Central Texas stays dry. Really dry.

Oh sure, it's "rained," but I recommend checking out the US Drought Monitor archive, clicking the "Contiguous US" setting to "Texas" and noodling around between the graphics to get a sense of how hot and dry summer 2012 will likely be.³ Hint below:

Drought at the beginning of summer 2011.

Drought at the end of 2011.

Drought report last week.

Notes
1) Turns out we made it over 80F today. Some parts of the Austin metro-plex made it to 83F.
2) Exxon the world's most profitable company just reported $41B in profits for 2011.
3) Our state climatologist believes this drought will continue for at least the next 5 years.

US Seems to Have "Escaped Winter" 2012

2012-02-01T07:26:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting --

"For reasons that no major U.S. news outlet can apparently explain, it has been really, really warm in the middle of winter over much of the country," energy expert Joe Romm, appalled yesterday by the L.A. Times. Romm points out that most of America is not having a winter this year but for some reason our media keeps failing to talk to any climate scientists in depth.

So after telling a few bad jokes (wakka wakka wakka) Romm talks to some climate experts here and here. Summary? In a year of heat record seating months, one after the other, January 2012 looks to be second only to August 2011 in number of days breaking national heat records. "January has, statistically, seen an extremely off the charts heat wave for the whole month for most of the country."

Obama Calls for Ending Oil Subsidies

2012-01-29T09:26:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I was the only person struck by President Obama's bold faced statement Weds night, calling for the end of US oil subsidies? It's not the first time he's suggested such a move 1, but in my humble estimation it's long overdue.

Obama, 1/25/12 (see full video here, 37:45 to 38:15):

"We've subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the tax payer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double down on the clean energy industry that rarely has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs."

According to the Financial Times Global 500, 2011, an index of the world's largest publicly traded companies, America's ExxonMobil is the world's #1 most profitable company. 2 America's oil production and equipment companies are doing remarkably well during this recession. Reading down the FT Global 500, 2011 list: Chevron is #9, Schlumberger (oil equipment & services) #41, ConocoPhillips #45, Occidental Petroleum #69, Apache #152, Haliburton (oil equipment & services) #176... you get the idea. 3

For reference sake, Apple is #3 on this list for 2011, with a market cap of $321 Billion. Goldman Sachs #74, with a market cap of $82 Billion. News Corp #171 with a market cap of about $47 Billion. Kellog's #478 with a market cap of about $20 Billion. And kudos to America's oil & gas companies -- who are doing MUCH better than in 2010 and previous years. Our top three oil producer/retailers have dramatically reduced their revenues yet increased their profits.

According to the Financial Times:

ExxonMobil, Irving, TX
2010: revenue $370.1 Billion; market cap $368.7 Billion
2011: revenue $341.5 Billion; market cap $417.1 Billion

Chevron, San Ramon, CA
2010: revenue $204.9 Billion; market cap $183.6 Billion
2011: revenue $189.6 Billion; market cap $215.7 Billion

ConocoPhillips, Houston, TX
2010: revenue $198.6 Billion; market cap $100.0 Billion
2011: revenue $176.9 Billion; market cap $114.1 Billion

Global Implications
To get a quick sense of how companies around the world stack up against each other I recommend Wikipedia's historical lists of the world's highest market cap companies. I know, I know, wikipedia right? (I happen to like Wikipedia's footnoting.) These lists are taken directly from the FT Global 500 1998 thru 2011. For 2010 six of the world's top 10 largest companies are in oil & gas, 10 of the world's top 25 are in oil & gas, and twenty five are in the world's top 100. 4

Speaking of big companies, what about big profits? The largest global/annual profit reports of all time (in real US Dollars, June 2011) as of Oct 2011, show ExxonMobil claiming the top four spots. (The four most profitable years ever in the history of the world. These guys are the champs.) From an American oil & gas perspective ExxonMobil has six of the top ten most profitable years ever, seven overall. Chevron has the 19th most profitable year. From a global perspective, eighteen of the 30 most profitable years for publicly traded companies in history belong to the oil & gas industry.

Back to Obama and US Oil Subsidies. The combined value of these world record years for Exxon and Chevron, alone, is $292.22 Billion in profit. By comparison, and as shown in a previous blog, Total US Oil Subsidies 1950-2010 was $369.00B. Since 1950 US tax payers have spent 44% of their energy subsidies on oil & gas ... the world's most profitable business sector.

Not much has been written or said about cutting oil subsidies in the US since Weds night. Weird. But the chief economist of the International Energy Agency announced about a week before Obama's speech he believes cutting global fossil fuel subsidization would halve total global greenhouse gas emissions. According to that guy -- the world's coal, oil, and gas (i.e. natural gas & gasoline) companies rec'v an average over $400 Billion "assistance" from our governments every year.

##

Notes
1. "It's not the first time Obama's suggested..." My quick googling shows O has been on this since at least April 2011: Obama video, Boxer support, NYTimes, etc.
2. "ExxonMobil world's most profitable (public) company..." The Financial Times 2006 list of state-owned companies, shows 9 of the top 10 to be in Oil & Gas. Saudi Aramco's market cap at that time was $781 Billion (3/4's of a Trillion $). Source
3. Here's the rest of the American oil & gas production and service companies from the 2011 largest global companies: Anadarko #192, Devon Energy #208, Marathon Oil #220, National OIl Well Varco #262, EOG Resources #275, Hess #314, Cheasepeake Energy #419.
4. "Global Implications..." The FT Global 500 2011 list shows 50 oil & gas companies in the world's largest 500.

China's solar goals boggle the American mind

2012-01-27T13:12:00.000-08:00

Via SustainableBusiness.com's newsletter --

China recently raised its target for the amount of solar it will install by 2015, from 10 gigawatts (GW) to 15 GW, an increase of 50%. Since the government introduced a national solar feed-in tariff (FiT) in July, and then recently raised the price it would pay for solar under the program, installations are booming. The country is expected to install over 2 GW in 2011, compared to just 500 MW in 2010.

China recently reiterated its Five Year Renewable Energy Plan, which has a target of 100 GW wind by 2015, with 5 GW of that offshore. The country had originally set 5 GW as its solar target, but doubled down after the nuclear meltdown in Japan.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects China will install 180 GW of wind and solar capacity this decade (by 2020), that's equivalent to 180 nuclear plants. Currently China has 42 GW of wind and 1 GW of solar.

Obama calls for "Nation building, right here at home"

2012-01-26T07:21:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama's complete State of the Union address, Jan. 24, 2012.

12:00 How We Got Here
16:45 Bringing Jobs Back
18:00 Corporate Tax Code
22:45 Education
34:00 Oil Reserves
35:00 Natural Gas
35:45 Fed $$ for Energy
36:15 Clean Energy
37:45 Ending Oil Subsidies
38:30 New Clean Energy Standard
39:30 Energy Efficiency
40:15 Rebuilding America's Infrastructure
43:45 Rules to Make the Free Market Work Better
45:15 Spills, Mercury & Safe Food
49:30 Pass the Payroll Tax Cut, Change the Tax Code
55:00 Limit Graft in Washington
59:00 Collaboration
1:06:30 Veteran's Job Corps

O's message: educate, regulate, and innovate for best growth and sustainability.

##

Oil & Gas Industries Add 75,000 Jobs

2012-01-26T06:28:00.000-08:00

It's a good time to be in Oil & Gas (and a bad time for the planet it seems). "Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration." President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, Jan. 24. 2012. President Obama continued, "Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. Tonight, I'm directing my administration to open more than 75% of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right — eight years..."

##

Via ThinkProgress -- Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75,000 Under Obama — More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL

Record Profits at ConocoPhillips

2012-01-26T06:17:00.000-08:00

Via ThinkProgress, ConocoPhillips Announces $3.4 Billion in Q4 Profits — Bringing 2011 Profits to $12.4 Billion: "ConocoPhillips announced its 2011 fourth-quarter earnings, reporting profits of $3.4 billion — a 66 percent gain– bringing total profits in 2011 to $12.4 billion. Below is a quick look at some other facts about ConocoPhillips:

ConocoPhillips has spent over $16 million lobbying Congress in 2011, ranking in as the fifth largest spender last year – and number one in the oil and gas industry.
ConocoPhillips has contributed over $200,000 to federal campaigns in 2011, with 90 percent of the contributions going to Republicans."

Read the full blog here.

Climate Change --'s worse than you think (pt. 3)

2012-01-26T05:42:00.000-08:00

Part I of this series was an overview. Part II talks about Prof. Kevin Anderson's "carbon budget," which plots out what's required if we humans are to stay within a "safe" global warming scenario. The international community defined that safe scenario as total planetary warming of no more than 2° Celsius since the beginning of the Industrial Era (1850s) to the end of this century (2100). So far our biosphere has warmed about 0.8°C during that period, leaving just a little more room at a time when world energy demand is growing like a weed and the fossil fuel industries are finding new ways to provide highly profitable oil, gas, and coal products (one example here).

Former DOE Assistant Energy Secretary andrenowned blogger Joe Rommhas written some authoritative pieces on the beyond 2°C question. According to Joe, the International Energy Agency (IEA),a highly respected and traditionally cautious firm, released a bombshell in theirannual world energy reportlast November. Among other things the IEA states that today's "planned policies ... will lead toirreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change.” The IEA estimates currentpolicies will lead to 6°C warming by the end of this century, and that for every $1 we don’t invest in clean energy technologiesbefore 2020 “an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 tocompensate for the increased emissions.” In short: today’s policies =disaster and waiting to change increases the costs of change by more than 400% next decade.

Romm says,

“The IEA isone of the few organizations in the world with a sophisticated enough globalenergy model to do credible (i.e non-hand-waving) projections of the cost ofdifferent emissions pathways and the costs of delaying efforts to achieve them.Those who counsel waiting for breakthrough technologies are urging us on a paththat is unsustainable, irreversible, potentially catastrophic, and economicallyindefensible, according to the IEA.

“The IEA’s 2008analysis of the 2°C warming pathway demonstrated that the total shift ininvestment needed to stabilize at 450 ppm is only about 1.1% of GDP per year —and that is not a “cost” or hit to GDP, because much of that investment goestowards saving expensive fuel."

The IEA therefore advocates that global/industrial greenhouse emissions cannot peak any later than 2017. A graph from their November report:

Click to enlarge.

###

Climate Change -- 's worse than you think (pt. 2)

2012-01-24T07:59:00.001-08:00

Myfirst post in this series was, “here’s the bad news.” Let me elaborate.

“Thissummer is very similar to what is projected under a +2°C global meantemperature increase,” Dr. Katharine Hayhoe (August 2011), director of the Texas Tech UniversityClimate Science Center, referring to 2011's record-breaking heat.

Source, or toggle the U.S. Drought Monitor archive for visuals.

Calling Dr. Hayhoe's statement "measured," is an understatement. But that's one of the points of science -- to provide us with unbiased assessments based on thousands of hours of high powered research. So check this out. Based on scientific assessment, in 2009 the world's international policy-making big wigs agreed that two degrees Celsius (2°C) is the only threshold of warming human civilizations can endure. Any more than that and climate projections indicate doomsday. Note that climate science shows our planet's mean temperature has risen about 0.8°C since the Industrial Revolution began around 1850. That leaves us 1.2°C headroom over the next 90 years.

How ’we doing? Climate / Energy scientist Kevin Anderson has been attracting some attention lately thanks to his "carbon budget" graph, which shows how soon and how rapidly our always growing global economy would have to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions to stay under the certified 2°C threshold.(1) Effectively, we're talking about: Chinese, Americans, Europeans, Indians, Russians, and Japanese (in order of biggest emitters) reducing their emissions dramatically, among others, immediately.(2)

Here's what really jumps out about Anderson's graph (below):

1) Emissionshave to stop, now. According to Anderson, the peak of world emissions must be “by” 2015, “by”2020, or “by” 2025 -- and then decline dramatically year on year (see below). Otherwise it’s too late. We have four options.

2) Thelonger we wait … the bigger the task. Here’s the deal.The graph shows:Ifwe peak emissions in 2015, we have until 2060 to meet the overall reductiontarget.Ifwe wait till 2020, we have to meet the overall reduction target by about 2042 (a rate of global greenhouse gas reductions equaling around 10%, year over year, for 22 years). David Roberts, "The total collapse of the USSR knocked 5 percent off its emissions. So 10 percent a year is like … well, it’s not like anything in the history of human civilization." If we wait till 2025, we have just10 years – till 2035, to meet the global emissions reduction target.

Click to enlarge.

Does anyone thinktoday’s efforts will get us there?

###

Part IIIof this series tomorrow.

1. Hear audio and/or view slides of Mr. Anderson's presentation, "Beyond Danger." Obviously the business people, the scientists, and the policy-makingpeople are not talking to each other re: climate projections. Perhaps THAT should have been Gore’s strategy all along: internationalbusiness development conferences, correlating economic growth and necessity to ecologicalprojections, and developing consensus on the next step fwd. Is there stilltime to convene a billionaire’s U.N. on the subject of economic growth? Perhaps this could bedone in the United States first? Let’s expand the values around the purpose ofbusiness -- past pure profit to include corporate and social longevity. “Is sustainabilityreally an option in our current economic model?” might be a good name for such a conference. Comments, anyone?

2. There’s lots more to say about the mechanisms needed to achievesuch a revolution. In short the options seem to be, 1) Everyone gets on board,2) Policies are created to coerce such change, 3) The economy we know and loveis shut down by internal and/or external factors.

National Research Council Recommends Waste Water

2012-01-18T06:19:00.000-08:00

via Eric DesRoberts -

The National Academy of Sciences, America's leading body of objective researchers, recently reported that American cities release "Approximately 12 billion gallons of municipal wastewater effluent each day to an ocean or estuary out of 32 billion gallons per day discharged nationwide." Their report, grippingly titled, Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater doesn't just emphasize waste water reuse, it clearly states waste water may be cleaner in some cities. From the exec. summary --

"Expanding water reuse—the use of treated wastewater for beneficial purposes including irrigation, industrial uses, and drinking water augmentation—could significantly increase the nation’s total available water resources, this new report finds. A portfolio of treatment options is available to mitigate water quality issues in reclaimed water, and new analysis suggests the risk of exposure to certain microbial and chemical contaminants from drinking reclaimed water does not appear to be any higher than the risk experienced in at least some current drinking water treatment systems and may be orders of magnitude lower. Adjustments to the federal regulatory framework could enhance public health protection for both planned and unplanned (or de facto) reuse, and increase public confidence in water reuse.

Read the full report here.

###

What is Environmental Justice and Why did the EPA sing, "Free At Last"

2012-01-15T21:24:00.000-08:00

In January of 2011 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Civil Rights Affirmative Employment and Diversity at an event honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "I am old to enough to have witnessed and experienced the remarkable progress that’s been made since the 1960s when Dr. King, in addition to his many other achievements, helped to plant the seeds for what would become our nation’s now-thriving environmental justice movement.”

Holder, “I want you to know that – at every level of the Justice Department, just like here at the EPA, (Environmental Justice) is a top priority -- and, for me, it is also a personal calling."

‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

According to the EPA, Environmental Justice will be achieved when "everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work." The movement against Environmental Racism began in the 1980s and was formally established as the Environmental Justice movement in 1991 when the First National People of Color delegation drafted and adopted "Principles of Environmental Justice" in Washington, D.C. Read Principles here.

In recent years the movement has expanded its definition beyond color lines. "We are just as much concerned with inequities in Appalachia, for example, where the whites are basically dumped on because of lack of economic and political clout," says Dr. Robert Bullard, movement 'grandfather.' Likewise, the movement has grown beyond radical environmentalism to include Christian , Jewish and other communities of faith and the academic sector. In the religious domain, Environmental Justice is often referred to as "Social Justice."

Attorney Gen. Holder, “Dr. King did not have the chance to witness the impact of the movement that he began. But he left with us the creed that continues to guide our work. His enduring words, which he penned from a Birmingham jail cell, still remind us that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Attorney General Eric Holder,

"Environmental Justice is a Civil Rights issue."

At the EPA's 2011 event Holder cited a 2005 report showing that African Americans were nearly 80 percent more likely than white Americans to live near hazardous industrial pollution sites at that time. Holder said these issues persist, “In 2011, the burden of environmental degradation still falls disproportionately on low-income communities and communities of color, and most often on their youngest residents: our children, my children.”

“This is unacceptable. And it is unconscionable. But through the aggressive enforcement of federal environmental laws in every community, I believe that we can – and I know that we must – change the status quo.”

After Holder's speech the event's program closed with the EPA’s general counsel and EPA's associate director of the Water Protection performing “Free at Last” for the audience at the Ronald Reagan Building.

Read more via CNSnews.com.

Learn about the EPA's Environmental Justice Achievement Awards.

Other sources: EcoHearth, The National Council of Churches, TaintedGreen, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History.

Happy MLK Day, 2012, to you.

###

This Guy Hates Your Government's Environmental Policies, too

2012-01-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

Stephen Colbert on environmental regulation: "Yeah (EPA) -- stop already. When something is clean, you don't need to clean it anymore. That's why I sold my dishwasher and my bidet." See video here.

"I hate those new light bulbs." Pigtail light bulbs are for girls. (video)

We need more sugar, transfats, and salt in our kids' foods (video).

"We've already solved the global warming crisis", and the Keystone XL Pipeline will create billions of jobs. "Do you have some hybrid vehicle that runs on broken dreams?"

All this via the Grist list, see more from Grist.org here.

"1st International Carbon Label Launched"

2012-01-12T14:11:00.000-08:00

Via Environmental Leader, “a concept full of promise and complexity...”
"First International Carbon Label Program Launched"

Gil Friend's Best of 2011

2012-01-11T19:27:00.000-08:00

Gil Friend, probably the grandaddy of corporate sustainability strategy, keeps a great "business-case-for-sustainability" blog. This week he published his top 10 sustainability developments of 2011. My #1:

Ecological Accounting
The domain of Ecological Accounting (aka, reality-based accounting) took a huge step forward this year when Puma (with PWC and TruCost) produced an environmental balance sheet and P+L, suggesting what their financial would look like if "nature's services" mattered. The bottom line: the ecological liability (amounted to) more than 45% of Puma's net earnings. Puma's parent company plans to extend the analysis across the rest of its companies this year...

See the rest of Gil's list here.

"Married to the jar lady"

2012-01-08T08:54:00.000-08:00

I'm fascinated by this suburban America family actually achieving a near zero waste lifestyle without alienating their kids, dressing in burlap, or touting extremist ideals. They make it look so clean and easy. A recent People Magazine feature caught my girlfriend's eye,

"Since 2006, the Mill Valley, Calif., couple and their sons have cut down their garbage output so that they now produce only enough in a year to fill a 1-liter mason jar... Gone are styrofoam trays and plastic wrap---Bea brings glass jars to the butcher, fish and deli counters to with meat, fish and cheese... Recently Scott was the one approaching the deli counter with glass jars. When he did, the clerk asked, "Hey do you know the jar lady?""

Leo (10) on life in the school lunch room, "It isn't hard to say no to chips. They're gone in three seconds, then the bag is in the trash."

from People, pg. 78

Meet the Johnsons - mainstream America's first zero waste household. Secrets: reused clothing, knotted towel lunchboxes fot the kids, no package grocery shopping, etc., and lots of recycling. Benefits? Dad says they've reduced some household expenses by 25%. Mom says, "We set out to simplify our lives, and it turned into something good for the environment." Here's a great little video from NBC's Today Show 2011 (see another here):

Cheers to these folks!

"The Year in Biomimicry"

2012-01-07T13:49:00.000-08:00

The notion of biomimicry fascinates me. In part because it's been in existence for millenia yet is viewed as novel, strange, ridiculous, even today. GreenBiz.com just published a story highlighting their top 10 biomimicry advancements of 2011. #1? 'Researchers finally figure out how to imitate bird flight mechanics' (my paraphrase).

"This device gains both thrust and lift from the flapping of flexible two-part wings, a concept that aeronautic engineers had abandoned in frustration long ago."

You probably remember Da Vinci spent some time on this one.

"Study of the Structure of a Wing. 1490"
(Click to enlarge.)

It's anybody's guess what 2011 flapping wing technology might lead to, but take note, as a field Biomimicry is gaining real cred. Read about how today's scientists and engineers are imitating shrimp, crickets, caterpillars and more to get ahead in business.

Texas 2011 Drought, $93 Billion in Tree Losses?

2012-01-05T19:27:00.000-08:00

"Nobody knows the true economic value of trees." That's the first thing that popped into my head last week when I read the Texas Forest Service recently estimated up to a half billion Texas trees measuring at least five inches in diameter were lost due to the unrelenting drought of 2011.

I already knew the state had lost close to four million acres of open lands to record wildfires, suffered over five billion dollars in agricultural and livestock damages, considered shutting down parts of its electric grid to prevent rolling blackouts due to water shortages, and that the list goes on. I also knew the long-term effects of Texas's drought looked equally dismal and that all its damage didn't just hurt Texans, but seriously? Hundreds of million of trees "killed?" That sounds expensive.

Map of TX eco regions.

The economic value of trees. I did a little digging. It doesn't take much time on Google to figure out the average value of an urban tree is about $1,000.00 per tree. The range of valuations, however, is huge. I have a friend who recently paid $7,500 to have three trees "installed" in his yard. The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers says, "A mature tree can have an appraised value of between $1,000 and $10,000." A US Court once valued a single, mature tree at over $160,000.00. But let's go with the City of Arlington, TX's 2009 study (pdf), which appraises their urban trees at about $932.50 per tree. Since the Arlington study omits many of the intrinsic services associated with both wild and urban trees in their valuation and since Arlington's number is the lowest I could find, let's assume this is a fair and conservative tree value and use it. Multiple the number of trees lost times the Arlington valuation, and you get:

-$93,250,320,404.72. -$93.2 Billion (in 2009 dollars). That's Arlington's $932.50 per tree x 100 Million tree losses. But wait, that's the low number. Texas Forest Service estimates "between 100 million and 500 million" trees died last year. Their high end count of nearly half a billion trees nets out a total impact of over -$466 Billion ($466,251,602,023.61 to be exact). Impressive, right? People seem to have a hard time thinking of the environment as having any economic value, perhaps that's because the environment's value dwarfs our little human-made economy. I've always suspected the "dollar" value of ecosystem services to be many orders of magnitude greater than the entire industrialized economy. How couldn't it be? How could Texas suffer around $100 Billion in ecosystem losses during a recession year and not be severely impaired? And what is the industrial economy is catching up? Perhaps events like this massive tree die off are whittling down our natural systems and there are only a few orders magnitude of greatness left in our nature. Texas Forest Service estimates from 2% to 10% of the state's 4.9 billion trees were just killed.* How many consecutive years can Texas sustain around $100 Billion in forest destruction? 49 years? 9 years? The drought is expected to continue for at least five years. If that comes to pass, its effects will likely have significantly changed much of Texas as early as 2017. Climate aficionados like me believe Austin will become more like Tucson over the next 90 years as desertification moves north. But what if that transition has already begun? What if Austin's desertification will be securely in place sometime in the next 10 years? What's Austin without trees? What happens to Austin's water cycle and summertime temperatures? Plenty of climate scientists believe Texas is indeed on a super rapid change trajectory, way ahead of schedule.

How Texas compares to the rest of the country (click to enlarge):

67.3% of the state in "extreme" drought conditions.

But nobody knows the economic value of trees. Or ecology. Or nature itself. And that's the point. Our environment should probably contain exponentially more economic value than our industrial economy. Perhaps we should start counting. And start changing. If you believe, as I tend to, that we humans are playing Russian roulette with the planet's future, changing the way society measureseconomic success is paramount, as is eliminating the emissions believed to be driving things like radical drought, as is preserving our trees and ecosystems.

Resources

Tree Services. Trees perform so many services.The Texas Trees Foundation lists the popularly accepted ones, such as: energy efficiency, human health benefits, pollution control, and property value enhancement. Trees Are Good, big fans of trees, list several more. The Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington has an even longer list including intangibles, such as psycho-social dimensions and positive effects on consumers in shopping malls. iTree is an industry-embraced software, being used around the world, to appraise trees according to a number of different criteria.
Lake Levels are another indication of total precipitation in the system. Texas lakes are generally speaking at all time lows. Check out the USGS and LCRA measurements.
Fruit Trees. Texas has (had?) an abundant food production economy, particularly in the southern regions of the state, thanks to grapefruit, lime, etc. Learn more here.
Tree Calculator. Calculate the value of your own trees here.
Photo Gallery. View one local drought photo gallery here.

*Total value of 4.9 Billion Texas trees, at $932.50 per tree in 2009 dollars is 4,589,250,000,000 ($4.5 Trillion).

"Top 10 Trends in Clean Tech 2011"

2012-01-02T06:10:00.000-08:00

Via GigaOm.com:

#1. Solar prices plummet: One of the most overwhelming market drivers of 2011 was the massive price drop of solar modules. Researchers have found that the price of solar dropped by 40 percent in 2011. Part of that had to do with Chinese solar manufacturers flooding the market with low cost solar, creating an oversupply and benefiting from low cost loans from the Chinese government.

#2. India set to become cleantech power house: When you think of developing countries and cleantech, you think of China. But India is creating a major market through its solar initiatives, smart grid plans and water infrastructure buildout.

Read the rest of this post here.

National Solar Parity ... in 15 Years?

2012-01-02T05:50:00.000-08:00

Blogger John Farrell (endorsed by Yale360 here) has been attempting to plot the emergence of solar grid parity for some time. He explains his "Solar Grid Parity 101" here and shows the impacts of state market incentives on solar pricing here. His most recent post, an animated timeline of the United States, shows San Diego reaching solar parity next year and a majority of US metropolitan areas reaching parity in 2023.

(Click images to enlarge)

Costs of solar vary according to differing incentives.

San Diego is projected to reach solar parity by 2013.
Click to see John's animated map /timeline.

But what if today's incentive structures change? Renewable energy market incentivization and subsidization is nothing if not a political battle. Independent analysts Energy Tax Savers recently published a white paper advocating extension of the U.S. Gov's 1603 "solar cash grant" program. The paper highlights Solar P.V.'s rapid growth in the U.S. and imagines the creation of 1,000,000 manufacturing, installation, and maintenance jobs if such incentivization continues:

"The United States is just beginning to achieve major year-over-year increases in commercial solar installations. Incentives, both state and local, have pushed the U.S. solar industry as far as it has come. In particular, the 1603 cash grant program has been integral to the success of solar. Solar P.V. installations grew by 114% from 2009 to 2010... industry analysts predict these figures to increase... In sum, as of the time this article is being written, 20.3 GW of solar power is either installed, being installed or in their development phase since January 1, 2010."

Department of Energy director, Steven Chu, believes the growth trends in solar P.V. are so strong that U.S. government could discontinue incentivization within 15 years (by 2027).

NASA Images of 2011

2012-01-02T04:30:00.000-08:00

Via Yale360 - "Floodwaters from Hurricane Irene slice through portions of Highway 12 on North Carolina’s Hatteras Island on Aug. 28, 2011."

Hurricane Irene, click to enlarge.

"The Midwestern U.S. resembles a patchwork quilt in this photograph taken by an astronaut aboard the International Space Station. In addition to the lights of the region’s large metropolitan centers — including Chicago, St. Louis, and Minneapolis/St. Paul — the green light of the aurora borealis glows above the curvature of the Earth."

Midwest lights, click to enlarge.

See the complete gallery here.

EarthSky.org's "Top Five Natural Disasters" 2011

2011-12-30T09:49:00.000-08:00

(#5.) This video really gets your attention:

Joplin, Missouri EF-5 Tornado
"deadliest single tornado to hit the US in modern history"

"most expensive tornado in world history"

(#4.) And this one:

April 27 Tornado Outbreak in U.S. Southeast

"caused more than $7.3 billion insured losses"

Turns out four of the top five natural disasters for 2011 listed by EarthSky can be linked to rapid, global climate change.

According to noted climatologist Katharine Hayhoe some of these effects are right on schedule, “This summer is very similar to what is projected under a +2°C global mean temperature increase.”

Tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, wildfires, floods, snow storms... 2011 was a year of extreme weather, one the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration called, "A year for the record books."

Calpine Champions New EPA Rule

2011-12-29T15:32:00.000-08:00

“In our view, the final rule reflects thoughtful engagement by the EPA with the industry and can be implemented in a cost-effective way while achieving its objective of reducing the toxics in our air."

That's Calpine CEO Jack Fusco, commenting on the EPA's new regulations limiting mercury and toxic air emissions. According to FuelFix.com, Calpine says the new regulations"are necessary and won’t create reliability issues." Calpine is the country’s largest independent electricity producer, owning 92 power plants in 20 states.

Calpine CEO, Jack Fusco

The regulations will require coal plants across the U.S. to install pollution control equipment, which limits mercury, arsenic, cadmium and other toxic air pollutants. The Chicago Tribune says such improvements will "create jobs, achieve cleaner air and water, drive technological innovations and protect children's health." The EPA believes this cleaner emissions standard could prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths annually.

Coal industry lobbyists have opposed these changes for more than 20 years.

Existing power plants will have up to 4 years to comply. I recently blogged about how such changes, initially opposed in Maryland, had created good paying jobs -- as well as some research discrediting the claim that air regulations are job killers. For more about the EPA's expectations for better health, economy, and environment visit the L.A. Times. Visit the EPA's Mercury & Air Toxics Standards page ("MATS").

Climate Change threatens Civilization, 1

2011-12-28T08:31:00.000-08:00

I've been avidly following David Roberts' gold-standard blogging for several months now. Roberts is brilliant, but that's just one reason his recent series on the brutal truth about climate change got my attention. Written during the COP17 talks earlier this month, this series has Roberts at knife's edge.

I too have freaked out at the hopelessness of climate change, focusing my life on a variety of environmental efforts too numerous to list for several years now. Interestingly, Roberts' thesis has something in common with my favorite economist, Gernot Wagner. Independently of each other they seem to be saying the same thing: we're not going to make it.

Wagner's thoughts, as expressed in his excellent new book, are grounded in three principals: 1. the analogy of the 10 foot woman, 2. we're not responding appropriately to climate change (himself included), 3. we're playing "planetary Russian roulette." The 10 foot woman analogy is used to illustrate that in Economics radical, random, incredible events occur quite often and that such events forecast systemic breakdown. The same can be said about the earth's climate. Incredible things are happening. (Note that protecting our economies is a popular priority and regulators are at least working on that problem, climate not so much.) Wagner's book goes on to explore the changes that need to take place, at what scale, and who needs to enact such changes in order to make a difference on climate concerns

According to Roberts the latest science confirms we're on an emissions trajectory that will increase the Earth's average annual temperature by at least 4°Celsius this century. Wagner's 10 foot woman analogy suggests things are potentially far worse than any one is willing to discuss, he even cites a renown Harvard economist (paper here) who believes we have a 5% statistical chance of seeing an increase of 12°C this century. The International Energy Association thinks we're on course for 6°C this century. Meanwhile, the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 141 of the world's countries agree -- 2°C is the maximum warming we can allow this century. In the last three decades, global temps have risen 0.6°C.(1)

With all that in mind, here are summary points from Roberts "Brutal Logic of Climate Change" piece, part one of a five part series:

I. Reframing won't work. Because climate change is a political buzz kill, climate activists everywhere are trying to reframe the conversation. "This can't work. At least it cannot work if we hope to avoid terrible consequences." Today's climate problems require war/crisis-like responsiveness, now. Without critical mass, such responsiveness is impossible.

II. How urgent is climate change responsiveness? "The Copenhagen Accord, signed by 141 countries (including the U.S.) and representing over 87 percent of global CO2 emissions, explicitly recognizes the scientific view that the world's economies must limit the increase in global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. However, many scientists believe a 2°C increase in average annual surface temps around the globe will cause extreme damage to our ecosystems and way of life. Many also believe we're headed for a 4° to 10°C increase, which according to Roberts, "we know to be a potentially civilization-threatening disaster." (4° to 10°C = 7.2° to 18°F)

III. We're accelerating in the wrong direction. "Between 2000 and 2007, emissions rose at around 3.5 percent a year; in 2009 emissions were up 5.6 percent. In 2010, we hit 5.9 percent growth, a record. We aren't just going in the wrong direction -- we're accelerating in the wrong direction." (Roberts)

IV. This ain't gonna be easy. "Any carbon reduction pathway that limits temperature rise to 2 degrees C shows global emissions peaking extremely soon and declining extremely quickly. {See graphic below} If we delay the global emissions peak until 2025, we pretty much have to drop off a cliff afterwards to avoid 2 degrees C. Short of a meteor strike that shuts down industrial civilization, that's unlikely... A key fact to remember: For a given carbon reduction pathway, the later emissions peak, the faster they have to fall to stay under budget." (Roberts)

Click to enlarge.

V. We need a Carbon Budget. The only way for "the rich, industrialized countries of the world" to peak emissions in 2015 and decline their emissions 10 percent year-on-year after that for the rest of the century -- or to meet any goals that might limit warming to 2°C is to determine a global carbon budget and divvy it up among countries.

VI. Can't we just do 4°C? [7.2°F] "It might seem that, given the extraordinary difficulty of hitting 2 degrees C, we ought to lower our sights a bit and accept that we're going to hit 4 degrees C. It won't be ideal, but hitting anything lower than that is just too difficult and expensive. To hit 4 degrees C we would "only" have to peak global emissions in 2020 and decline thereafter at the relatively leisurely rate (ha ha) of around 3.5 percent per year. Sadly, even that cold comfort is not available to us. The thing is, if 2 degrees C is extremely dangerous, 4 degrees C is absolutely catastrophic. In fact, according Kevin Anderson {who's summaries are linked above as latest science}, "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable."" (Roberts)

Is environmental realism the new environmentalism?

###

Four more parts in this series: coming soon.

Footnote
(1): via America's Climate Choices. The National Academies Press. 2011. p. 15. "The average temperature of the Earth’s surface increased by about 1.4 °F (0.8 °C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0 °F (0.6 °C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades"

Treehugger.com's best of 2011

2011-12-27T11:39:00.000-08:00

Treehugger features slideshows all year long. A few end of year standouts:

MetaEfficient.com's bests of 2011

2011-12-27T11:32:00.000-08:00

My favorite consumer blog, see the whole list here.
Some sample posts:

Greenbiz.com's 11 most popular stories of 2011

2011-12-27T11:28:00.000-08:00

GreenBiz.com is first rate. The top three:

1. The Rise of Urban Farming and Other Varieties of Sustainable Ag
2. How a Futuristic Environmental Design Idea Became a Reality
3. "Reimagining the World Was a Responsibility"

Read the whole article here.

Just think of all the cleaner jobs

2011-12-24T16:45:00.000-08:00

David Roberts of Grist.org posted these graphics earlier this month. They came to him via Black & Veatch, an international CO2 reductions firm (click to enlarge).

Two things to note:

Compare the Growth. Slide A shows US renewable energy projects 1929 to 1970. Slide B shows renewable energy projects, planned or implemented, 1971 to present.
Note the Key. Slide B's key indicates a diversity of wind (purple), solar (yellow), biomass (green), and geothermal (brown) projects, all ranging in size from <1 MegaWatt generation to +150 MegaWatts generation. (One megawatt will power roughly 1,000 homes for a year.)

It'd be great to see a similar layered graph, which shows the # of jobs associated with each installation. As well as one that shows the # of jobs in relative fossil fuel electricity projects.

Air Regulations = Job Gains (2011 Case Study)

2011-12-21T17:22:00.000-08:00

The following blog is transcripted highlights from WYPR.org's 11/30/11 story, Clearing the Air About the "Job Killer" Myth.

Five years ago none of the power plants in Maryland had any of the air pollution control equipment known as "scrubbers," even though the technology had been available and highly effective for reducing smog, asthma, and acid rain for three decades. Why?

Opponents of clean air equipment and regulation argued that such equipment was burdensomely expensive and that requiring it would cause plant closures, power grid blackouts, and sky rocketing electric bills. "I think it's almost axiomatic that new regulations do kill more jobs than they create," Scott Segal a leading lobbyist for coal fired power plants.

However, Eban Goodstein, director of the Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College, who's spent more than a decade studying claims about job destruction caused by environmental regulations, responds, "It's not axiomatic by any dimension. There's virtually no empirical evidence to suggest that's true."

Goodstein's research found there are about 1,500 job lay-offs every year across the U.S. caused by environmental regulation. That total amounts to 1/10 of 1% of annual job losses. Goodstein, "Regulations are a scapegoat and not a real villain in the economy… Globalization, technology, and corporate restructuring (are) responsible for the elimination of far more American jobs. Regulations that mandate the construction of pollution control systems tend to create jobs during an economic downturn. This is because they force companies to spend money on improving their plants."

After the Maryland Healthy Air Act of 2006 none of the regulation's opponents predictions came true: there were no plant closures, no blackouts, and no price spikes. Instead, the state's two largest electric power companies spent a combined $2.6 Billion purchasing equipment, hiring 2,800 construction workers and increasing full-time employment at their renewed plants. At the Brandon Shores Coal Plant 33 full time scrubber employees make between $50,000 and $100,000 per year.

Workers observe the Brandon Shores Coal Plant scrubber.

Baltimore jogger.

If the Benefits of the Clean Air Act Exceed Costs by a Factor of 30, then what?

2011-12-19T07:04:00.000-08:00

A good point -- "It turns out that protecting children from foul air leads to more productive adult workers." (Gernot Wagner)

But clean air's not just good for human health. Michael Morris, recently retired CEO of American Electric Power, a company which owns the nation's largest electricity transmission system and nearly 38,000 megawatts of electricity generation capacity, said during an October investor call the EPA’s proposed tighter mercury and toxics standards would be anything but a job killer: “Once you put capital money to work, jobs are created.”

Josh Bivens, of Economic Policy Institute, in a recent congressional hearing on the same proposed EPA rule: “Calls to delay implementation of the rule based on appeals to economic weakness have the case entirely backward — there is no better time than now, from a job-creation perspective, to move forward with these rules.”

Could these guys be right?

This podcast claims that Maryland's Brandon Shores Power Plant, south of Baltimore, increased its workforce in order to run its air cleaning equipment.

Chemical technician Melissa Sampson stands in front of the new "scrubber"
at the Brandon Shores coal-fired power plant.

Learn a little more about the benefits of the Clean Air Act here.

Ecologizing Jobs Growth 3

2011-12-17T13:24:00.000-08:00

I believe "ecologizing jobs growth" is the environmental community's next big step towards solving today's environmental problems -- at scale. What's the most effective way to empower environmental causes in 2012? Link them to jobs growth.

Our broad community of environmentalists -- fighting to preserve nature and save the planet, needs easy to share, fact-based metrics that show the financial and ecological wins and losses related to today's industrial practices.

"Ecologizing jobs growth" needs to be about more than promoting green jobs. America's economic restoration is critical to the quality of our environmental future. Our environmental community needs to work together to articulate its vision for a sustainable economic restoration.

After achieving that, we need to build support from mainstream Americans in a manner that puts pressure on both politicians and whole-industries to grow within our framework.

67% of Republicans Oppose Fossil Fuel Subsidies

2011-12-14T06:12:00.000-08:00

A surprising factoid from the Yale/George Mason Universities study released recently,

"69 percent of Americans oppose federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, including 67 percent of registered Republicans, 80 percent of Independents, and 68 percent of Democrats."

A recent Bloomberg article adds that fossil fuels received about 6x more subsidies than renewables globally this year and are "creating market distortions thatencourage wasteful consumption."

Graph from Environmental Law Institute.

51% of Americans, "Environmental Regulation Adds Jobs, Grows the Economy"

2011-12-13T06:43:00.000-08:00

The Yale/George Mason University study mentioned yesterday, states:

"85 percent of Americans (including 76% of registered Republicans, 83% of Independents, and 90% of Democrats) say that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (54%), or has no effect (31%). Only 15 percent say environmental protection reduces economic growth and costs jobs."

60% of Americans Support a Carbon Tax

2011-12-12T09:45:00.000-08:00

Metaefficient.com reports that a recent study, "Public Support for Climate & Energy Policies in November 2011," conducted by Yale and George Mason Universities found,

60 percent of Americans support a $10 per ton carbon tax if the revenue were used to reduce federal income taxes, even when told this would “slightly increase the cost of many things you buy, including food, clothing, and electricity.” This policy is supported by 48 percent of registered Republicans, 50 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Democrats.

Furthermore,

90 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a very high (30%), high (35%), or medium (25%) priority for the president and Congress, including 82 percent of registered Republicans, 91 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.

Download the full study here.

Book Recommendation

2011-12-10T15:22:00.001-08:00

"Since we can't live without market forces, we need to guide them..."

This is the thesis of "But Will the Planet Notice?" recently released by environmental economist Gernot Wagner. The book embraces life's contradictions (even for the greenest of environmentalists), calls for a new realism within the environmental movement, and posits that we (Americans, in particular) must achieve large scale economic change soon if we are to, "help keep the human adventure going in workable ways, rather than continue right off the edge of a cliff."

"The Terawatt Challenge"

2011-12-09T09:42:00.001-08:00

Many have said Nobel chemist Richard Smalley's 2004 presentation, The Terawatt Challenge, does the best job of synopsizing one of our world's great economic challenges: providing more electricity worldwide, year to year in the 21st century, while eliminating fossil fuel use.

A terawatt is one trillion (10¹²) watts. In 2006, global electricity use measured about 16 terawatts.

Smalley (2004),
"To solve the energy challenge, we will have to find a way to produce, every day, not just what we are producing right now, but at least twice that much. We will need to increase our energy output by a minimum factor of two... certainly by the middle of the century, but preferably well before that... To give all 10 billion people on the planet the level of energy prosperity we in the developed world are used to... we would need to generate 60 terawatts —the equivalent of 900 million barrels of oil, per day."

Some of Smalley's cited challenges:

Need for Presidential Leadership
Dealing with Atmospheric CO2
Finding Alternatives to Oil
Rebuilding the Energy Grid
Commercializing Local Energy Storage

Read the Smalley transcript here.

Alan Grayson explains #Occupy in less than 1 minute

2011-12-07T07:56:00.001-08:00

White House to create 50,000 Energy Efficiency Jobs with 0 Investment

2011-12-05T05:38:00.001-08:00

From the Christopher Mims' blog, White house to make $4 billion out of $0 using energy efficiency, "Everyone says energy efficiency can pay for itself, and now the White House is out to prove it...

"The White House says this initiative will lead to retrofits for 1.6 billion square feet of commercial and residental space, and create 50,000 jobs over the next two years.

Here’s how it will work: "The feds pay nothing, and the contractor itself pays for the retrofit. Then the feds pay the contractor what they were paying before, for energy. The contractor keeps the difference between new, lower energy bills and what they're paid, until the cost of the retrofit is paid off. Then the contract ends, and the feds reap all the efficiency benefits from there on out. It's a similar financing mechanism as, for example, SolarCity, which offers solar panels for free."

Does America Spend Too Much on Clean Energy?

2011-12-04T05:59:00.001-08:00

A recent Time magazine feature stated, "Subsidies for clean energy still lag far behind the public money that goes toward oil, coal, and natural gas projects." According to energy star Joe Romm clean energy has "by far the highest documented return on investment (ROI) of any federal program." For reference sake, here's a graph showing the timeline of federal energy incentive spending 1961 to 2010:

At a global level, fossil fuels received $409 Billion in subsidies in 2010, renewables $66B. From this perspective fossil fuels give better return on investment, they cover about 80% of global energy needs. But oil and coal have been around for more than 100 years, aren't they the very defintion of "mature industries" -- ? Shouldn't subsidies be used to support emerging technologies? The ones we want? Not to favor market giants?

This US Energy Information Administration study clearly shows that $172B was spent on clean energy research 1970 to 2009. By contrast, that number is 0.5% the roughly $30 Trillion spent on America's transportation and electricity infrastructure investments during the same period, which could certainly be viewed as yet another form of incentivization.

Obama's MPG Standards Would Save Trillions, Clean the Air, Add Jobs

2011-11-27T21:20:00.000-08:00

On Nov. 16 the Obama Administration formally announced proposals for new fuel economy standards, 2017 to 2025. If the standards become real the fleet wide average of America's cars, SUVs, and pick-up trucks would "almost double" by 2025.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), "More 150,000 Americans currently have jobs making parts for and assembling clean cars—hybrids, electric cars, and other advanced vehicles that weren’t available 10 years ago." The Obama Administration's new standards for even better-performing cars would surely increase that number, "save drivers more than $80 billion a year at the pump" and cut vehicle emissions of carbon pollution "in half compared to today."

Save Money
Clean the Air
Add Jobs

The White House announced it was collaborating on the standards with automobile manufacturers responsible for more than 90% of vehicles sold in the U.S., last July.

Graphic via whitehouse.gov.

Job Opportunity?

2011-11-26T11:19:00.001-08:00

According to Keep America Beautiful (KAB) our nation throws away more than one million tons of aluminum each year. That's enough aluminum to rebuild America’s commercial air fleet every three months. Here's a video on the matter, from KAB's KAB Man series:

How many Americans could be put to work reclaiming and reprocessing paper, eWaste, metals, plastics, and other materials for reuse in manufacturing durables?

It'd sure be nice to keep litter off our lands and out of our landfills.

Aluminum can be recycled infinitely without losing its purity. Steel has similar properties. KAB Man features more info and fun facts here.

Energy Efficiency = More Net Jobs

2011-11-21T05:11:00.001-08:00

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), investments in energy efficiency improvements net more jobs than investments in power generation. Energy efficiency retrofits, and putting subsequent savings ($) into industries other than power generation, employs more people.

Here's a scenario provided by the ACEEE:

A city decides to spend $15 million improving energy efficiency in public buildings. These improvements will lower the city's energy bills by $3 million a year, each of the next 20 years.

Three types of jobs will be created from the $15 million investment. First, contractors will have to install the energy efficiency measures (direct jobs). Second, contractors will require materials (insulation, tools, etc.) from manufacturing and building supply companies (indirect jobs). Finally, workers in both categories will spend their earnings on necessities and fun (induced jobs).

Over the short term the city's spending on energy efficiency puts $15 million into employing people in more labor-intensive industries than power generation, i.e. construction, manufacturing, and retail. Figure 1 shows ACEEE's analysis of average jobs per industry per million dollars of revenue.

Over the long term, annual energy efficiency savings spread evenly across manufacturing, construction, trade, and government services (aka. community renewal), will employ roughly 17 people per year per $1 million spent. Figure 2 shows net job gains if capital is shifted in these manners over the short and long terms.

Energy Efficiency strategy = Option 1.
Power Generation strategy = Option 2.

Energy Efficiency strategy = 22 more jobs per year.

This blog distilled from an article by Casey Bell, senior economic analyst at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Facts & figures from "How Does Energy Efficiency Create Jobs?" fact sheet.

Clean Energy Has Highest Documented ROI of Any Federal Program

2011-11-20T04:34:00.000-08:00

Clean Energy Has Highest Documented Rate of Return of Any Federal Program: Read more about,

"The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001 that a handful of clean energy technologies returned about $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million. The United States is an amazing venture capitalist when it comes to clean energy R&D."

TX mayor pledges to make Austin Coal-Free

2011-11-18T08:42:00.001-08:00

Wednesday, Austin, TX Mayor Lee Leffingwell announced his bid for reelection and highlighted a campaign promise,

"to begin a dialogue with the community, with Austin Energy, with the LCRA, and with state officials, about how to make Austin coal-free - and aggressively plan a date to achieve that goal."

Mayor Leffingwell

Austin's electricity utility is municipally-owned. The city's electric service territory is regulated by the state such that "Austin Energy" has a monopoly over local consumers, providing 100% of local electricity. Revenues from the utility are used to fund City operations and programs.

Austin's coal plant provides about 600 megawatts of electricity to the community on a daily basis and is overwhelmingly responsible for the majority of community carbon and toxic air pollution, water use, and health injury costs.

I've written extensively about the economic benefits and opportunities related to moving on from this "clunker" since 2009.

This announcement is a real paradigm shift for the mayor (any political leader) and a huge step forward for Austin's environment, health, and economy.

EPA attributes 1.7 Million Jobs to the Clean Air Act

2011-11-18T05:26:00.001-08:00

The Clean Air Act for America celebrated its 41st birthday on November 15, 2011. A February 11 letter from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson earlier this year claims that 1.7 million jobs have been created by The Clean Air Act. Highlights from the letter:

"In 1990 alone, EPA’s implementation of the Act prevented an estimated 18 million child respiratory illnesses, 850,000 asthma attacks, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 205,000 premature deaths.

"The EPA’s priority is safeguarding the health of the American people."

US Oil received 44% of US Energy Incentives, 1950-2010

2011-11-17T08:01:00.001-08:00

Why is it that the Oil industry, the world's most profitable energy sector, has recv'd 44% of all US energy subsidies since 1950? I don't get it.

A new report commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, 60 Years of Energy Incentives: Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development, shows the following lead chart.

(Click to enlarge)

Computer Algorithms for Spatial Analysis of Ecosystem Service Flows

2011-11-17T05:46:00.001-08:00

"And decision support systems to help people who are making land management systems get a better sense of how to target their different land management scenarios."

Ecologizing Jobs Growth 2

2011-11-08T04:15:00.002-08:00

How will we save the planet? ... (read: our civilization) ... at scale to the challenges we face?

Water shortages, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, eWaste disposal, toxic bodycare, land and species conservation; the list of large problems goes on and on. Rectifying these things will require whole system, whole infrastructure revolutions.

Yet we sit at a moment of great opportunity; a moment when our economy must rebuild and our media/political complex has great influence over every citizen's thinking.

What if environmentalists joined together to demand America's next president "ecologize jobs growth"? Environmentalists could recommend that every existing industry and every new, Federal-level economic choice be measured according to social, environmental, and economic impacts.

How would increasing America's access to oil fare? How would increasing American fuel efficiency standards fare? We could demand that such information be made public via an online, Federal dashboard, for all to view and discuss. How many jobs? For how long? What do they pay? What kinds of pollution? How much pollution? What kinds of health impacts?

Environmental Regulations Create Jobs

2011-11-07T09:46:00.000-08:00

I recommend this article, "Environmentalist Regulations Create Jobs, Economists Say." It does a great jobs of simplifying a complex topic into four reference points, reorganized here:

Look at the Big Picture. Some experts say the effects of regulation "should be assessed through a nuanced tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors." For example: the costs of healthcare incurred by air today's pollution are paid by workers and the general population.
Pollution Regulation Creates Net Job Gains. The jobs v. regulation discussion should focus on net jobs lost or gained. Environmental economists believe reducing oil imports would have a net effect of creating 900,000 U.S. jobs. Others believe strategic clean energy investment and regulation would create about 1.7M U.S. jobs.
Cutting Wastes Can Be Profitable. "Complying with regulations is often well within a company's means." Compliance typically amounts to less than 2 percent of business costs. Eliminating pollution often helps a company improve profitability.
Help the Environment by Changing the Economy. In economies adaptation is the rule, not the exception.

Faith-driven Climate Action

2011-11-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

The Interfaith Environmental Network is inviting Austin's faith community to start discussing climate change and what to do about it. At a special event tonight, Bob Murray (former CEO, Seattle Power & Light) and Joep Meijer (CEO, The Right Environment) will "address today's energy and climate change challenges as moral imperatives for people of faith, show a clear path to winning, and recruit those who wish to participate in a year long effort to demonstrate faith-driven solutions, locally."

Here's hoping more faith communities will get started on these issues soon.

Party of Pollution?

2011-10-31T06:25:00.000-07:00

Recently, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry are each proclaiming various versions of the "kill the EPA" to "restore America's economy" mantra.

Paul Krugman condemns that theory in this post.

Ecologizing Jobs Growth 1

2011-10-25T20:26:00.000-07:00

At the SXSW ECO conference recently I was impressed by the fact that our environmental movement still seems to be energizing around the idea: "We Must save the environment."

Shouldn't we be working together to tell Americans How to save the environment?

Isn't that messageabout "ecologizing" the jobs growth economy?

Wouldn't rebuilding America's economy from afoundation of environmental sustainability support traditional environmental conservation and policy change efforts?

Environmental Regulation Bad at Killing Jobs

2011-10-24T14:48:00.000-07:00

Thanks to NAFTA, recent history is showing that environmental regulations are doing very little to reduce American jobs. This article, from Kristen Sheeran, building off of Paul Krugman's recent attack on Republicans, hits some important highlights:

"Businesses are unlikely to relocate to avoid compliance with environmental regulations.
The empirical evidence shows that there has been little movement by U.S. firms to other countries to escape environmental regulatory burdens. Nor has there been a migration of new investment in dirty industries to developing countries with lax regulations, the so-called "pollution havens".
"Plant closings and layoffs as a result of environmental regulations are actually rare.
Layoffs that can be attributed to environmental regulations account for only one-tenth of 1 percent of all mass layoffs... This is equivalent to roughly 1,000 to 3,000 jobs per year across the entire country. For example, less than 7,000 jobs were lost between 1990 and 1997 as a direct result of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
"At the economy-wide level, there seems to be no real trade-off between environmental regulation and growth.
Environmental regulation leads to a very slow shift in the composition of spending: Jobs are gained as workers produce, install, and maintain cleanup equipment and engage in retrofits, and are lost as firms pass on those cost increases to consumers, who have to cut back their purchase of goods and services from that sector. Environmental regulation begins a slow shift away from the products of dirty industry.

"As with all public policy, changes in environmental regulations create winners and losers... Labor market conditions in the U.S. will continue to be more heavily influenced by larger structural changes in the U.S. and global economy than any proposed regulatory changes. If we want to get to the heart of the unemployment problem in the U.S., we need to explore these structural issues."

On a related note, this just published today -- the Obama Admin's investment in clean tech are outperforming the private market.

Also, Nature magazine warns of devastating climate changes in our lifetimes.

I'm a huge fan of these posts

2011-10-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

By Gil Friend:

A Simple Sustainability Recipe 9/26/11

No More Coal 9/18/07

The True Cost Economy: Ecologizing Capitalism 10/12/11

Gil Friend is founder/ceo of Natural Logic. He has +35 years of strategic sustainability consulting, including transformational work with companies like Nike and Coca Cola, and Govs & NGOs like Albuquerque and the Brooklyn Children's Museum. Too numerous too list.

Reasons to Oppose the Tar Sands Pipeline

2011-10-18T10:24:00.000-07:00

Americans need Obama to refuse the Keystone XL pipeline extension. Over the long term this pipeline will empower the continuation of a polluting industry that will make our planet unlivable and threatenAmerica's domestic tranquility. Let's turn away from ecologically devastating jobs creation. Send Obama your thoughts, here. Here are mine:

1. JOBS: Poor Quality. Jobs such as those offered to our union pipefitters maintain our dysfunctional status quo.

2. JOBS: Are We Sure? According to a Cornell University study, TransCanada's claim that thispipeline would provide 20,000 union jobs is overstated.

3. SECURITY: Oil Dependent Forever? Both the Obama and W. BushAdministrations have stated "America needs to end its addiction to oil."

The Ogallala Aquifer provides roughly 30% of America’s
agricultural water and27% of its drinking water.

4. SECURITY: Water in Danger. Once that 2,500 mile pipelineis in place America's most important water resource, the Ogallala Aquifer,would be at risk of pipeline leakages and spills due to: human error duringdesign, human error during installation, mechanical error, materials error,systems error, malfunctions, the effects of environmental conditions changessuch as long term drought, the effects of dramatic environmental weather eventssuch as flooding or tornadoes, sabotage, and terrorism. The Ogallala Aquifer provides roughly 30% of America’s agricultural water and27% of its drinking water: 24/7, 365 days a year.

According to the tar sands industry,

tar oil is roughly 1.5x more greenhouse gas intensive
than conventional oil.

5. SECURITY: Climate Impacts. The Alberta tarsands oil resource is 8x larger than Saudi Arabia’s conventional oil resources.Empowering this business would extend the existence of fossil fuel burning manydecades into the future. From extraction to consumption, the tar sands industryopenly states that consuming tar oil is roughly 1.5x more greenhouse gas intensivethan conventional oil. Every American has had some encounter with the effectsof dramatic weather events this year. Those of us who have studied climatechange know these events are "right on schedule" with the gloom anddoom recent climate science modeling has produced. If the global scientificcommunity's consensus on climate change and what's causing it is correct,consuming these tar sands would lead to the end of civilization as we know it, as extreme weather events intensify infrequency and power and the regularity of seasonal cycles all butdisappears from our year to year living experience. The future promise of burning moregreenhouse gasses, according to the climate scientists, isunlivable. This community has stated repeatedly America is the single biggestexacerbator of the climate problem and that “the world” is VERY far behind inprotecting the planet… Or should I say,we humans are very far behind in maintaining the stabilityof the planet our civilization relies on. Let's not make a terrible problem worse.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better.

6. SECURITY: Our Military. Since911 thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives protecting refueling convoysin the Middle East. This type of technology is an easy target for any sizedopponent. Permitting this pipeline wouldmake it easy for the Military’s oil dependence to continue. Our soldiersdeserve better. Let's not expand America's oil refinement business.

"Check back in 5 years" - Notes from the TX State Climatologist

2011-10-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

I got to hear John Neilsen-Gammon, the State of Texas's Climatologist, speak about the "Basic mechanisms of the 2011 TX Drought" and our "Outlook for the future: short & long terms" last Friday. His presentation, loosely, was titled, "Texas Drought: Why You Should Get Used to It." His closing point, "If you want a better forecast, check back in five years."

So, with that in mind, here are some highlight notes from the presentation.

Historical Data

For past 6 months, State of TX as a whole has recv’d an avg of 6” of rain, compared to a 110 yr historical avg of 18 inches (spring/summer months).
This is clearly the worst one-year drought on record. Nearest competitor 1956. Note 2007 also the wettest year on record. Note that 1980’s & 90’s were anomalously wet decades, averaging far more precipitation than historical weather and tree ring records show.

>> Gammon says: a) current drought is somewhat of a natural cycle, and b) current drought is somewhat of a correction in relation to wetter than usual decades, and c) current drought appears to be markedly exacerbated by global warming. <<

From a short-term perspective: this has been a top 10 drought for almost every location in TX.
Next most widespread drought was 1925. Longest term drought was 1956. 2011 is worst 9-month cumulative dryness of any single year on record.
Last major precipitation system across Texas was 9/27/2010. (Note that parts of far East Texas had already slipped into drought at the that time.) By March 2011 the drought had started statewide. By August, the coloration of the US Drought Monitor drought chart no longer did justice to showing the severity of Texas’s 2011 drought.

Current Data

10/10/11 things are improving slightly, however most of the state at less than 50% of normal for 12 month precipitation accumulation period.
In addition to the drought, heat in 2011 is exceptional. TX temps are running neck & neck w Oklahoma’s as to which will have the hottest summer on record for the US, 2011.

Projections Data

A confluence of climatological, meterological, and hydrological factors all implies that future droughts will be HOTTER. Dryness in the system drives heat increases. Evaporation management to become incredibly important.

>> Gammon says: It is not yet fully understood the value of trees and vegetation in helping to manage evaporation, hydrological systems, and high heat. It is believed that less moisture in the system means more intense heat. <<

Will this continue? What can we expect?
Ocean temps say yes will continue. La Nina strengthens that possibility.
Climate models say we’re looking at a weak to moderate La Nina rest of this year, this means: below normal rainfall, above normal temperatures.
Global studies indicate that rainfall should increase everywhere except TX, next 20 years.
The evidence seems to be expanding that the worst possible conditions (a cold tropical pacific and a warm Atlantic Ocean) are increasing. However, and as always in climate science: It’s not clear which factors are going to win.

Drought outlook

> Returning to La Nina

o Drought likely to continue

> Period of drought susceptibility

o Ocean temps favor drought

o Period will last 5 to 15 years

o “Come back in 5 years for a better forecast”

Takeaways
This is the time for water planning.
What if we have 4 more years of 70-80% below normal precipitation?
Time to change our response to drought. Some ideas:
> Take actions according to months of the year
> Take actions according to whether we’re in an El Nino or La Nina

More Info
Office of the State Climatologist: http://atmo.tamu.edu/osc/
John’s blog: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/

The Opportunity of Beating $ Billion Oil Power

2011-10-14T10:43:00.000-07:00

Note: This blog is part of a series. See part 1 and part 2.

The opportunity of beating billion dollar oil power is jobs. Specifically, green jobs.

Getting green jobs creation onto the 2012 presidential agenda could slow or stop Federal support of unsustainable $ billion enterprise. From this day forward when speaking in a political context, environmentalism = jobs and national security, 1st, preservation of species and planet, 2nd.

Here's a vision: Executive directors from America's leading national environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and the NRDC, come together as one body of leaders on the national media stage. These leaders should build cross-community support for their agenda, which identifies the destructive power of today's brown industrial technologies, demonstrates stress on America's future, and calls on this nexus to empower corner turning, stability-building, green jobs growth. The overall goal should be to put people to work in sustainable enterprise at scale to today's environmental challenges, and to disempower the alternatives.

The Keystone XL Tar Sands pipeline decision presents a rare opportunity for energizing Americans on government-led, incentivized and regulated, green jobs development and subsequent transition out of the brown economy. By pushing Obama to lead on green economic development environmentalists can help unite Americans around the noble causes of restoration, sustainable economic growth and equitable jobs development. America's environmental leaders must be a leading voice in the 2012 election process. They must stand up and unite Americans around economic opportunities, which turn the corner on environmental problem making.

Now is the time.

Our national security, longevity, order, and health are at stake, particularly in light of our society's most common concerns:

fossil fuels
water
food
jobs

Rapid, billion-dollar-scale development of a green jobs economy is America's middle path, the single most effective step forward for solving big environmental problems. Continued Federal investment and support of a brown jobs economy will worsen America's short and long term well-being.

Tar Sands vs. the Environment 2

2011-10-14T10:30:00.000-07:00

Completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline means the end of peak oil. At first this might sound like a good thing. However, the Keystone XL Pipeline would connect an incredibly large amount of the world's dirtiest oil to the petroleum refinery capital of North America.

Map shows proposed pipeline from the tar sands
in Alberta, Canada to the refineries on our Gulf Coast.

That might also sound good -- we need jobs, but the Alberta, Canada "tar sands" contain an oil resource which emanates from "bituminous sands." Bitumen as in "asphalt." The two words are synonyms. At room temperature bituminous sands have the consistency of cold molasses. They're gooey. They don't flow. Tar Sands Oil must be cooked out of these clods before it can be refined. Lighter hydrocarbons must be added to the cooked oil before it can be pipelined. Think of deriving oil from asphalt.

According to the tar sands industry, from extraction to refinement to consumption tar sands oil creates 1.1x to 1.45x more greenhouse gasses than current oil (lighter crude). If the blizzards, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires that have plagued our country this year don't have you concerned about greenhouse gasses, please think again.

But here's the deal: Alberta's tar sands contain 8x the oil production capacity as Saudi Arabia. The tar sands industry estimates there are TWO TRILLION BARRELS of this gooey stuff in Alberta, ready for refinement. The Keystone XL Pipeline would connect those barrels of tar oil to an area of the Gulf Coast already refining +5M barrels of oil per day. (See my homemade graphic below.) This area has more petroleum refinement infrastructure in place than any other area in North America. (And it's next to the ocean!)

Graphic shows amount of barrels produced per day
and rank of various refineries.
Info provided by US Energy Info Admin
(see "Ranking of US Refineries" 1/2 down page).

The empowerment of this pipeline means green lighting a multi-trillion dollar industry who's core business proposition is burning the world's heaviest crude at massive scale for many more decades.

##

Original of this article.
Part 1 of this article.

Tar Sands vs. the Environment 1

2011-10-14T10:23:00.000-07:00

From a short term economic perspective, there are two primary reasons for expanding the Keystone XL Pipeline: Jobs & National Security.

Jobs. The pipeline's expansion might bring as many as 20,000 jobs to American union workers.
National Security. There's enough tar sands oil in Canada to eliminate America's reliance on other oil producing nations.

With a total supply about eight times larger than that of Saudi Arabia, Canada's Tar Sands are estimated to be worth trillions of dollars. Roughly speaking, the Alberta tar sands could produce 170 billion barrels of oil at today's prices, an additional 1 trillion barrels at higher prices. In 2009 the U.S. consumed about 18.7 million barrels of oil per day.

Here's Five Ideas for Environmentalists:

Reframe the Debate. Environmentalists cannot afford to be pitted against the jobless. It's disingenious, politically disastrous and indicative of our lack of awareness of popular social issues. We need to: a) use the power of our environmental organizations to aggressively engage in finding or creating green jobs for union workers and others; b) use our collective power to call on the State Department to find these people greener jobs; c) better define which jobs we're fighting against (large corporate interests who profit wildly from environmental destruction); or d) all of the above.
Rethink Organizing. We need more resources invested in campaigns that promote the most effective actions, statements and coordinations. I attend church and I attend rallies, but these activities (when pitted against well organized pro-business campaigns) seem to maintain the status quo, not change it.
Educate the Opposition. We need education that's directed at the people who understand us the least. "The media" won't help. The media's first role is to stimulate, not educate. In a public forum, starting with, "Did you guys know that...insert quantitative and qualitative anecdote here." When pipefitters look out at the world, they don't see environmental problems that threaten what they hold dear. From an environmental campaign perspective, these unionites are not aware of what they're fighting for.
Spend Your Money. We need to get serious about investing in the solutions to the issues we're passionate about. The best pro-pipeline criticism of the environmental position last night: "I hope you didn't drive here in a car, or use electricity today, or rely in any way on any of the fossil fuels that have made this country the greatest country the world has ever seen." Meeting that standard can be done, but it costs money. I drive a 100% veggie fueled diesel vehicle. No mods, just put in the fuel. My car also uses 100% animal fat based engine oil. My car requires a fraction of the fossil products of most cars depend on. This is easy to do. I eat and wear local and organic. We recycle everything we can and minimalize packaging waste. We've kept our electricity use minimal during daylight hours this summer. We're on green electricity. . . and so on. Environmentalists need to: a) stop funding the opposition; b) support the economic growth of the alternatives to their opposition (this is an imperative); and c) demonstrate the related solutions they use in their own lives every time they speak publicly ("I'm Chris and I drive a non-fossil fuel vehicle. It gets 35 mpg and runs on locally sourced biodiesel and biooil. When traveling across country I can refuel it with regular diesel or biodiesel depending on what's available...etc...").
Respond to the Opposition's Logic. In the case of last night's hearing, it was jobs and national security. Jobs: Are the 20,000 new jobs claims overstated? Cornell University thinks so. National Security: Presidents Obama and W. Bush have each stated "America needs to end its addiction to oil." But from a climate perspective tar sands oil production and consumption is 1.3 to 1.7 times more carbon intensive than current oil production and consumption. Using tar sands means increasing CO2 emissions related to transportation by at least 1/3rd. Climate scientist James Hansen calls this game over for the climate. The pipeline would also put America's most important water source for agriculture and drinking water in danger from: human error during design, human error during installation, environmental or landscape changes, natural disasters, terrorism and sabotage. Today's Keystone pipeline has had 12 incidents of leakage in 12 months. At this scale, one mistake or accident can affect a lot of people's jobs, way of life, food chain, and well being. Think Fukushima (March 2011) and Deepwater Horizon (April 2010). See more on this in part 2 of this blog.

All in all, the argument is simple. It's dirty job creation for a very specific population (maybe 20,000 people) vs. the fate of the United States of America. The choice should be clear.

##
Images courtesy Statesman.com & Creative Commons.
Read Faith-based and Secular statements.
Tar Sands photo gallery.
Read the original of this blog here.

Welcome Blog

2011-10-14T10:02:00.000-07:00

Hello, I'm Chris. I'm starting this blog to try and raise awareness about what i believe should be America's #1 political priority: ecologizing jobs growth.

Of course -- contribute your comments, but also please feel free to submit your own articles and suggestions here.

Thanks