Moving From the Fringe

A UN report “Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment" states that ‘the idea of renewable energy being a fringe interest of environmentalists [has come to a full stop]. It is now a mainstream commercial interest to investors and bankers alike.’

It took high oil prices and an array of government incentives to get here but the huge flows of investment capital into renewable energy, which reached $100 billion for the first time in history last year, indicates that the sector is now re-emerging.

A New Environmentalism

We are constantly reminded by environmentalist that we all need to kick in and do our part to make this world a better place in which to live.

We see it in the blogs and websites we visit. We hear about it on radio and television, mainly on the Public Broadcasting stations. There are pockets of environmental activism groups sprouting up here an there but it just seems that there are still so many people who don’t believe their small part can make any real difference.

The underlying inhibiting factor to seeing more local activism is that people feel impotent with regard to politics and public affairs. The feel they have been pushed out of public life and that getting involved makes little difference in their community.

If people could be convinced that what they do would make a difference then they would do more. It is difficult to develop stewardship if it cannot be connected with personal responsibility. Without a clear connection between our actions and individual responsibility to the environment then all of the scenes of marine wildlife choking to death from ingesting our plastic throwaways or the many urgent calls from scientists to lessen our carbon footprint will go unheeded.

Throughout history, society has placed the power of caring for us and the environment in the hands of politicians and we have adopted the idea that it is their problem and therefore it is out of our hands, and with this attitude we have effectively taken ourselves out of the picture. Government models consequently take up the policy of ‘command and control’ through which laws and lawsuits are meant to shape our behavior.

While we cannot legislate responsibility or good judgment, individuals are beginning to recognize a common interest and a common purpose in becoming a more active and responsible citizen through recycling, water conservation, and fuel economy.

People and companies have made great strides in becoming more environmentally responsible. However, these efforts still fall short of what is needed for the long term health of this planet. While the ecosystem has some abilities to correct or heal itself, the limitations on the damage it can sustain are quickly approaching. It is vital that even more people begin to recognize the seriousness of these issues and start taking personal responsibility for what they are doing to the environment.

We can find plenty of sources to tell us what we need to do, and we need to herald the activities of the countless citizen groups and individuals that are participating in the environmental movement in hopes of igniting a more participatory spirit. We don’t need free-market environmentalism that depends entirely on the whims of the individual and the economy, we do need a participatory environmentalism that emphasizes community partnerships between local businesses, local governments, local individuals and stewards who are closest to the resources.

The old environmentalism has developed a loss of local control for citizens and local governments that often find themselves at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency and mired in politics instead of science. This has led to contradictions between what individual property owners believe is best for their own interests vs. what is in the best interest of the community.

Shortly after the creation of the EPA it soon became apparent that a centralized form of ecosystem management was flawed. Only when locals have a say in their own community and environmental civics can we see great strides in protection of our unique ecosystems.

Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959), the great American architect, practiced his own brand of environmental civics by insisting that homes conform with their natural settings.

Aldo Leopold (1887-1948), the great Wisconsin conservationist and author of A Sand County Almanac, believed that conservation is too important to be left to government alone; it is a realm for individual responsibility, good science and economic reality.

Like Leopold, I believe that if we don’t have committed, responsible citizenry then all the efforts in the public sphere will go for naught.

We cannot give up control of our local environments to the ‘one-rule-fits-all’ mentality of the federal or even state governments. Forming constructive partnerships is difficult and sometimes frustrating work but the effort to do so is essential.

To paraphrase Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem In Memoriam 27 ’Tis better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all’.

As always, comments are welcomed and encouraged.

Smarter Electrical Grid Could Save Us Money and Energy

We have heard of smart appliances - fine tuned washers, dryers, water heaters and refrigerators – but what about a smart electrical grid?

These appliances are outfitted with computer chips to help prevent the colossal power failures (brown outs) that plunged large areas of the U.S. into darkness in 2003 and 1996. The chips sense when the electrical transmission system is stressed and partially turn themselves off to save kilowatts. Using these chips in a clothes dryer, traditionally the largest user of residential electrical energy, can turn off the heating element until the grid restabilizes.

The electric grid, a vast network of transmission lines that carries energy from power plants to your home, wasn’t designed to anything more than what it does. We flip a switch or plug something in and generally get as much power as we're willing to pay for. But with the ever increasing demand for more power plants and the growing environmental consequences of providing that power coupled with the rising costs in generating electrical energy this system is unsustainable. As a result, power providers and technology companies are making the electric grid smarter.

In order to convert this passive supplier of electricity into a means of telling us, in our homes, when power demand is high, power companies are testing methods to coax users to reduce their demand during peak periods. One method for cutting back on electrical use is through smart appliances, another is by a glowing amber dot on a light switch that will blink to ask you to turn that switch off.

Smart-grid technologies have gotten small tests throughout North America, as utilities and regulators scout how to coax people to reduce their demand for power. The utility Xcel Energy plans to soon begin a $100 million smart grid project reaching 100,000 homes in Boulder, Colo.

In a separate test that began last September in Milton, situated on the western edge of the Greater Toronto area, 200 test participants are given the ability to use their personal computers to visit an online control panel that configures the home's energy consumption. Each subject chooses the temperature and which lights should be on or off at certain times of the day. Rules can be set for different kinds of days, so the house might be warmer and darker on summer weekdays when the family is out.

The family can override those changes manually, whether it's by turning on the porch light or raising the thermostat to ward off a Canadian chill. But the system guards against waste. If midnight comes and no one has remembered to lower the thermostat and turn off the porch light, those steps just happen.

These little tweaks add up nicely for another person testing the Milton system, Marian Rakusan. He's saved at least $300 on utility bills since the program began.

Programmable thermostats and other "smart home" controls have allowed people control their energy use for some time now. The big change here is the combination of these controls with that blinking amber light on the switch -- where the grid talks back.

Milton's local gas and electricity retailer, Direct Energy, will set those amber dots blinking in an emergency. It might happen a few times in a summer month. Maybe there will be congestion in Ontario's overtaxed transmission network. Perhaps a power plant will be down for maintenance. Or the number of air conditioners in use will overwhelm electric capacity.

If users have not responded quickly enough during times of grid-stress or their individual settings demand that the power company step in then Direct Energy will be able to remotely enforce conservation, should it become necessary. It can raise the set temperature in a participant's home by 2 degrees Celsius in the summer (nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit), reducing its air conditioning load. The company also has permission to shut off the testers' water heaters and electric pool pumps for four hours at a time during these power emergencies.

Most people prefer this reach of the power company into their homes as opposed to having rolling black-outs. California officials recently had to back away from a proposal to require remote-controlled thermostats in new buildings.

An alternative to the test in Milton is to provide powerful economic incentives to force conservation.

An advanced notion of this will be tested this summer in 1,100 homes served by Baltimore Gas & Electric. Pricing plans will vary, but generally the households will pay the cheapest, "off-peak" rates most of the time. Some testers will pay higher rates every weekday afternoon. And all of them will be subject to "critical peak" periods of even higher charges, declared on as many as 12 weekday afternoons with stress on the grid. The Maryland utility will have its own version of Milton's amber dots. Most of the homes will get 3-inch-high orbs that will glow different colors to indicate the price of electricity: red instead of their usual green, for example, during critical peak periods.

By far the best way to save energy consumption is to have the whole system automatically adjust itself for the highs and lows of electrical use. Controllers are being tested for this purpose. A Demand Controller is a microcomputer load control system that monitors the amount of energy being used in your home and can turn off selected devices until power consumption has lessened. Maximum tolerable loads can be set by the home owner with the highest-conservation setting for dishwashers to start only when electricity prices are at their lowest, or when wind power has kicked on. This can save the home owner 20% to 70% off their energy bill.

Electricity use per home has risen 23% from 1981 to 2001, according to the Department of Energy. Electronics and appliances, and our decreasing tolerance for sweating through the summers are mainly to blame for this increase. The Census Bureau says 46% of single-family homes completed in the U.S. in 1975 had air conditioning. By 2006 it was 89%.

Raw materials that fuel power plants are soaring in price and being eyed more skeptically by regulators concerned about air quality and greenhouse gases. We simply cannot continue to build more coal plants even if they do claim to be cleaner burning. More efficient use of what we already have can be the better answer. A mere 5% improvement in U.S. electric efficiency would prevent 90 large coal-fired power plants from having to be built over the next 20 years, according to Jon Wellinghoff, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In some states, residents can get rebates if they let the utility trigger radio transmitters on their air conditioners that cycle the chillers off for a few minutes in strained summer hours.

Companies such as EnerNOC have built software and sensor networks that can remotely dim lights or raise refrigerator temperatures inside businesses, in an instant. For homes, upgraded electric meters can offer near-real-time feedback on energy use. And new generations of appliances and thermostats can coordinate with each other and electric meters over in-home wireless networks.

Whatever smart system is adopted, it is sure to be an improvement for both the environment and the home owner.

It Is Dangerous to Take Gifts From Politicians

Senator John McCain has proposed a gas-tax-holiday, a ‘gift’ if you will. Every year, just before the summer driving season, someone in congress proposes just such a break to ease our economic woes. Has it ever happened? No. Will it happen this time? Let’s hope not.

The amount of federal tax collected on a gallon of gasoline is 18.4 cents, roughly 5% of the current average price of $3.38/gallon. This would save the average commuter between $3 and $4 per tank. If the average commuter fills their tank once a week, then by the end of this three month no-tax period, he/she could conceivably save $36 to $48 which is truly a paltry sum.

During that time, the federal government would lose $9 billion and more than 300,000 jobs. The federal Highway Trust Fund, which is supported by this tax, is already facing a $3.4 billion shortfall to finance much needed infrastructure repairs nationwide. The federal transportation department says every $1 billion in highway spending creates 34,779 jobs. Sure, it would help companies like FedEx and UPS who are struggling to stay profitable due to high gas prices, but saving some jobs only to lose others is not a very responsible economic policy.

McCain plans to cover this loss with money from the general fund which would add to the deficit. Also, a very stupid and short-sighted idea. It saddens me that this is the best that a presidential candidate can come up with. And of course, since this proposal is outright political pandering for votes, Senator Hillary Clinton jumped right on it. America is in for more serious trouble.

There are several major drawbacks to this ridiculous proposal. First, by making gasoline cheaper during the busiest driving time of the year consumers will only use more of it. This not only quickens our pace towards the bottom of the trough but it would have immediate detrimental financial and environmental effects by increasing the price of a gallon of gas, increasing the amount of CO2 emissions (which contradicts Senator McCain’s stated goal of reducing CO2 emissions) and increasing the profit to oil producers.

Does this still sound like a ‘gift’?

“You don’t want to stimulate consumption,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, interviewed by the New York Times. “The signal you want to send is the opposite one. Politicians should say that conservation is where people’s mindset ought to be.”

Mr. Goldstein said that instead of freezing the federal tax, the government should help lower-income populations pay for gasoline. It would be cheaper and benefit those households that need it most.

This guys shows much more leadership quality than any candidate we are currently forced to deal with.

The United States has the lowest gasoline taxes among industrialized countries. It also has the highest gasoline consumption level in the world, nearly 25% of all gasoline consumption is by Americans. Energy experts say the two are related. Raising the tax on a gallon of gas would slow down its consumption and finally force us to think about our driving habits and force us to be more energy conscious.

Haven’t we learned yet about what they say about accepting gifts from politicians? We always pay more for it in the long run.

Sustainable Agriculture Can Feed the World

After reading a fascinating post by Kate of Hills and Plains Seedsavers, my curiosity began me on a quest to learn as much as I could about sustainable agriculture. We both, as well as many others, have written our thoughts on one form or another of organic agriculture for some time now and I was wondering if we could actually produce enough food to feed the world without using pesticides or other synthetic, non-natural fertilizers that purport to boost food crop output.

In my research I discovered a web site entitled Food First. They published results of a study that was done by the University of Michigan Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology that shows that not only can we feed the current world’s population without the help of chemical-based fertilizers and pesticides, we can by converting to a sustainable organic food production system support a population of up to 10-11 billion by the year 2100! Which will be the world’s expected population by that time.

The original Green Revolution of the 1940’s (Victory Gardens) was credited with averting widespread hunger by drastically increasing agricultural production during World War II. When our soldiers came home after the war, it was felt that the need for these gardens was over and so they fell out of favor. The post-war economic boom saw many people leave the farms and home gardens to experience the conveniences that our new found prosperity brought to us. Farm yields were increased through the science of plant genetics and chemical fertilizers. Food production was improved by the ability to mass produce canned and frozen foods that greatly cut down on food preparation time. This allowed people to enjoy more of the new leisure time that everyone craved.

Years later, after seeing the damage caused by chemical fertilizers and pesticides and the fact that hunger is still a major problem, sustainable organic alternatives are once again receiving the attention they deserve.

The study was published in the June 2007 issue of the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. I won’t go into great detail of the trials, but they compared alternative and conventional agriculture from 91 studies and were able to demonstrate that current scientific knowledge implies that organic agriculture could actually increase global food production by as much as 50% (to 4,381 kilocalories/person/day).

The problems of hunger and food security in the world are not presently associated with not enough food, but with poverty and the lack of ability to acquire food. Whether sufficient food is produced organically or conventionally, the problems of fair distribution and acknowledgment of the right to food will still need to be resolved, and no amount of food production alone will change the political system that leaves those without money to live without sufficient food.

Currently, the world produces enough food to feed everyone, if we would stop artificially fattening up cattle with grain that could go to feed humans. Cows stomachs are not designed to process grain, their natural food is grass, but ranchers receive more profit by feeding their cattle grain. This mis-direction of human food leaves over 800 million people who cannot acquire enough food for their basic needs, according to Food First. They go on to say that if we are to address world hunger, we cannot avoid food sovereignty: people's right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, no matter how much is produced. This implies the democratization of our food systems—not their further industrialization.