No single environmental issue has received more media attention over the last decade than global warming. The scope and debate of this issue is much more massive than any single blog post could possibly contain, which is why I have decided to divide this into a four part series, (and even in four parts, it will only scratch the surface). Literally hundreds of books and thousands of news articles have already exhaustively covered the topic from virtually every angle and perspective, so perhaps the first question that this post should address, is why even talk about it all? Well, despite all of this attention, unfortunately we still live in a country where misinformation, avoidance, and general ignorance reign supreme (I will address this later in part 2 of the series). The lack of awareness to the irrefutable scientific evidence and likely outcomes of global warming is shocking and frankly a little depressing, given the time frame that is left for this country to take a leadership role in combating climate change. The effects of global warming combined with the possibility of peak oil being reached in our near future (the next 2-10 years) could possibly make this current recession/depression a slight economic dip compared to what can happen if we do not take serious steps to reducing greenhouse emissions (carbon/methane being the two main culprits) and our dependence on fossil fuels. The solutions to this problem will not only be necessary in our own country but it will be vital that we use what little economic and military leverage that we have left to influence the rest of the world to do the same.
Due to the severity of the possible outcomes of global warming, and the potential for disbelief that these outcomes may cause for some people who read these series of posts and are not currently informed on the issue, I would first like to make a few things clear about myself and my personality. If you already know me, then hopefully you know that I am not some environmental alarmist, or an alarmist in general, any opinion that I hold on any topic is based solidly in fact and is only formed after I have done enough research to satisfy my own high standards. Additionally, people who know me understand that in no way am I the "tree-hugger" type that would like to see everyone "return to nature" to "live off the land" while wearing Birkenstock's dancing around a fire singing Kumbayah. I consider myself first and foremost a humanist, and my concern for the planet is founded in the realization that we are as dependent on the health of the planet as any other creature on it. We have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, whether we choose to realize it or not and if we too drastically alter the planet's condition, we will inevitably be altering our own. I like the creature comforts that modern civilization has provided for us, and although some of the luxuries currently afforded to us are unsustainable, most of them can be sustained (with re-arrangement of course), if wise policy decisions are made and investment is made in the right industries. Creating an environmentally sound future will mean a lot of short term economic sacrifice, sacrifice that no one seems to want to make, but the alternative of not doing enough to halt our effect on global temperature is so severe, that it has become imperative that we rework a large part of current social and economic structure as soon as possible. It is after coming to these conclusions that I felt compelled enter law school to pursue a career in environmental law, as I had realized that humanity is at a turning point in its history, and I simply could not sit on the sidelines and just watch as shortsightedness and corporate greed potentially destroyed our planet and future.
It is against this stark backdrop that I will try to condense this issue into several summaries in order to create a brief background, explain where global temperatures and current emissions currently stand and what should be the goals for the future. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this issue, and almost all environmental issues, is that there are solutions to these problems, they are either already available or just within our reach, yet there is not enough public or political pressure to push them through, mainly because it would mean a great diversion of economic resources that we claim we cannot afford despite our high standard of living compared to the rest of the world’s population. Although there is little debate in the actual scientific community to the effects of human contributions to global warming, there is a serious amount of pseudo science and propaganda that circulates the internet and sometimes the mainstream media that either disputes human’s contribution to global warming or that global warming exists at all. Since these views are a severe minority (at least in the scientific community and usually only held by those that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in our current lifestyle, i.e. they are associated with an industry non compatible with the changes necessary to halt global warming), I will only briefly address those viewpoints. Over the course of the next few weeks (hopefully, although it may take longer as I am heading into my finals), I will be providing answers to the following questions.
Part 2. (The Issue) Why there is still the idea in the American public that the issue is not settled? How long the scientific community has known about it’s anthropogenic origin? Why this issue should even matter to you (if it isn’t already obvious)?
Part 3. (Current Perspective) What is the current U.S./World output of greenhouse gases? When will the most serious effects of global warming happen? What are effects of global warming are we already seeing?
Part 4. (Solutions) What solutions are being worked on? How can we live in a world without fossil fuel? What you can do to make a difference.
The goal of this series of posts is simple, if the issue of global warming has somehow previously escaped your attention, to give you fair and balanced insight into where the world stands today, and if you already know the gravity of the issue, to provide an overview and give you a place to refer friends that might not be as informed as yourself. Stayed tuned...
Movie Week! (Aka Educational Videos)
When I was in grade school, the highlight of any semester would be when the teacher would somehow work a movie into the curriculum. It really didn't matter what it was on, just as long as I was in class watching t.v., I was excited. So, in that vein, and in lieu of the global warming post (since I have been busy lately working with the Michigan Environmental Council and as my semester is now in full swing, I haven't been able to finish working on what will be a very long post about global warming), for your viewing pleasure a "Clean Coal" commercial by the Coen Brothers (directors of Fargo, No Country for Old Men, etc. etc.), and a really important, informative clip that does a great job explaining what "peak oil" is and its repercussions on the world economy. I would add however, that the recent economic downturn, and subsequent decrease in oil/energy consumption has given a little buffer zone to the effects of peak oil. Regardless, the perception of oil shortage will happen, probably within the next 5 years and if we haven't moved away from oil as our major energy source by then, some wild things will likely ensue.
Largest Solar Deal Ever Announced
In exciting news for the alternative energy industry, Brightsource Energy, a solar thermal power plant maker, signed a deal with California last week to construct a series of seven installations in the California Mojave Desert. Upon completion, the project will generate more than 1,300 megawatts of power, which would be enough energy to power a city the size of San Francisco. You can read about the deal here. The deal will be the largest solar installation in history, and is a great sign that states are actively pursuing clean energy alternatives. This follows a plan enacted in November of last year by Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, which pledged development of 1.3 gigawatts of solar power to be in use by 2020 (which will power 10% of L.A.), so there has been good news all around with solar energy and California lately.
To give a brief overview of solar thermal energy, it is different from solar photovoltaics cells in that mirrors are used to reflect the suns rays to a central tower that then uses that heat generated to create steam in a boiler which in turn spins a turbine, which generates electricity. Solar thermal energy has been used in various forms since 600 b.c. and there is an interesting history of its use here.
The only downside to solar thermal plants is that they take up massive amounts of land (the Brightsource project will span over 10,000 acres in the Mojave) and therefore are only viable in areas where there is enough sun and space to make them work (which for the U.S. is mostly in the Southwest). Additionally, since there these plants require such a large amount of land they will be invariably located some distance from major cities. This will require the U.S. to upgrade its energy infrastructure to transport the newly generated electricity long distances to the cities without losing some of the power in the process. However, thanks to the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which will be signed into law on Tuesday, there is $4.5 billion appropriated to modernize the nations electricity grid in order to "enhance reliability of the energy infrastructure" (its on pg. 60 of the report if you are interested enough to read through it), so hopefully that should put a major dent in that problem. Unfortunately there also is a provision in there for $3.4 billion for "fossil fuel research and development" as well (see pg 62 of the bill). So its a bit of a mixed bag for environmentalists. Basically, it has a lot of funding for electric infrastructure development, some for environmental cleanup (around $800 million), grants for development of hybrid electric car batteries ($2 billion) and is too heavy on the fossil fuel research and development. Although our country will have to ease itself off of fossil fuel, climatologists feel that it is urgent that we get there sooner than later, and although this bill will help, we shall see if it fast enough. Curbing global warming will require us to decrease emissions more quickly than anything in this bill could provide for. Next post will be discussing where we currently stand with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as possible solutions for restructuring our country to try and meet this challenge. Sphere: Related Content Labels: ARRA Act, solar energy, solar thermal
Sustainability/Intro to the Blog
Editors Note: Having jumped right into blogging without really doing an introductory statement, I wanted to take a step back and write about the big picture. Why I am interested in the environment, and how I view our place as humans in it. It is from this starting point, that all my future environmental discussions go forward from, so this post essentially acts as a broad mission statement for the blog.
---------------
Sustainability. Perhaps no one word is more relevant, more important, and more vital to the future of the human race. It is a word that is easily defined, yet achieving it in practice will require a vast rearranging of how we as humans interact with our planet and our fellow inhabitants. This blog was created to explore this simple, yet the same time almost incomprehensibly complex idea and the immense implications that it has for our way of life and our future.
As the dominant organism on this planet, we have been able to use our intelligence to conquer the highest mountain peaks and deepest oceans, yet we still have been unable to recognize our true place in the context of the planet on which we live. As the human population continues to increase and resources are exploited at the cost of the environment, this understanding will be a requirement to our survival. While our intelligence has previously given us free reign of this planet and all its resources, we have yet to decide that with this knowledge we must be stewards rather than pillagers. As humans, we are simply another tenant on this planets surface, and our continued evolution as a species is as much dependent on the survival of the other organisms on this planet as they are on us being responsible caretakers. There is no longer any time to wait to exercise this responsibility, as human caused environmental change nears the tipping point of catastrophic effects for all organisms, ourselves included, it has become absolutely critical to alter the course of how we interact with the resources of our planet.
The 21st century will undoubtedly be one of great change, as the fossil fuels that lead us through an industrial revolution dwindle and continue to create a greenhouse heating effect on our planet; as our fresh water sources become more scare and polluted, and industrial agriculture, deforestation and overfishing simultaneously contribute to global warming and create food shortages. These are not doomsday scenarios, they are simple facts. The only question is, will the human species rise to meet these challenges, and create a world that humans can live in balance with nature, or will the short term goals of the masses drive us all over the cliff to disaster? Solutions to all of these problems are either already available or developing, but the time frame to put these solutions into practice is short, and there will be many tough choices along the way. Hopefully, through this countries leadership, the world will be able to put aside political, ideological, religious and racial differences and unite behind this common goal.
This blog is dedicated to my journey through this mass of interconnected issues regarding our relationship with our environment, our place on the plant, and how to reach a sustainable future, while analyzing the current problems and solutions that are available, and trying to fit them into the context of what is a very complex and often short sighted world.
A Nation In (an energy) Crisis pt. 2
Last post took a look at the state of nuclear energy and nuclear waste in the U.S., as we enter into a new administration with a new hope for investment in clean, renewable energy. The last eight years have shown that our country is long overdue for a shift in how and where we obtain our country’s energy from, as it is simply not economically feasible for us as a nation to engage in future energy/resource driven conflict. This post will take a look at thus far the least used of the renewable energy sources, solar power.
With only .1% of our nation's energy production, (as of 2006) solar power remains an untapped part of the solution to reworking our nation's energy needs. Although current solar energy technology lags behind all other sources in terms of cost efficiency per kilowatt hour of power generated, it offers many advantages to the current leading energy sources (fossil fuels generate a whopping 85% of our energy needs with nuclear second at a distant 8% of total energy production) in the U.S..
As a starting point, solar power is an unlimited renewable resource that once it is online contributes zero greenhouse gas emissions (there are greenhouse gases produced in the production of solar cells, but this amount is 1/10 th as much as conventional fossil fuels produce, per unit of energy). The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. A typical solar or photovoltaic cell, currently lasts about 20 years before there is any decrease in production capacity. So then the inevitable question is why is only .1% of our nations energy generated by solar? Currently, the cost of building solar power plants relative to the amount of energy (or lack thereof) that they generate, the amount of land necessary to build a cost effective plant, and the energy needed to build solar cells are the three main hurdles to overcome. Due to the complexity of each of these problems, this post will focus mainly on the cost/efficiency issue.
The first problem is the cost of manufacturing, which can be solved through tax incentives that will make solar energy more appealing to energy investors. As a country that is consistently losing its manufacturing base, the U.S. must make itself more appealing for companies to build manufacturing plants, if it hopes to right itself from our current trade deficit. Our nation is simply too large to have shifted its entire economy to the service sector, and our recent financial collapse is a testament to that fact. As our manufacturing jobs decrease, outsourced to other developing nations where the labor is cheaper and there is more tax incentive to do business, our trade deficit continues to swell, and our economy continues to suffer, as the world's service demands are not rising at a pace consistent with the demand for manufactured goods. Consequently, it is the average American that suffers, as the dollar drops in value, and the government continues to try to plug holes in a sinking economy by bailing out failing financial institutions, not addressing our trade deficit and by simply borrowing or printing more money. Unfortunately this is the current state of our nation's economy, and as now President Obama has correctly identified, it is critical that we re-invest in our own country, start creating green jobs and in the high tech manufacturing sector (solar energy included), is an excellent place to start.
With recent developments in solar cell technology that allow solar cells to harness sunlight from any angle, it is possible that we could see an unprecedented boost in solar efficiency and energy output. What it will take however, is government investment in these technologies. Other countries such as Japan, Germany and even the Philippines have a head start on us as their governments have already recognized the potential in solar and other renewable energies and already many American companies have simply moved overseas to take advantage of tax breaks. In order for the U.S. to compete in the alternative energy sector, they will have to make it economically attractive for American business to stay here. Additionally, through setting new standards for the generation of renewable energy by existing companies, the legislature needs to take a leadership role in positively effecting the direction of our new "green economy".
One such example was instituted in 2006 under Senate Bill 107, when the state of California, already a leader in environmental regulation, created the Renewables Portfolio Standard which required 20% of its power to be generated by renewable sources by 2010. Subsequently Pacific Gas and Electric has responded by working on construction of the world's largest solar power plant (pictured above). This example shows that it is necessary to have an forward thinking legislature that will drive business towards a sustainable future. Although I do not agree that 20% is nearly enough to have a significant impact on our economy and foreign relations, it is at least a step in the right direction, and one that other states will hopefully follow.
When it comes to the long term financial and environmental health of a nation, renewable energy is one area where government intervention through tax breaks and credits is necessary. Anyone that still believes that we live in a free market capitalist society after the latest round of government bailouts is simply delusional. The short term financial windfalls of fossil fuels for energy companies only exist because government has yet to calculate the actual "cost" that they incur on the health of the population and our environment. It is time that the U.S. invests in itself, its industry and its future, and with the recent developments in efficiency (panels now pay back their investment in 1-3 years), solar is a good a place to start as any.
A look at our nations energy crisis (Pt. 1)
***Over the next series of posts, I will be addressing some of the important issues that set a backdrop for determining our nation's energy future.***
An energy crisis? Yes, our nation is currently in an energy crisis state, despite the lack of headlines attesting to this issue. It is a crisis state when our country feels forced to engage in forcibly occupying other countries halfway around the world in order to try an secure its energy future. It is a crisis state when the major source of our energy (oil) that supports our massive infrastructure has reached its max production capacity yet the demand continues to rise exponentially. It is a crisis state when we are seriously considering building new nuclear power plants when there is still no way to dispose of the radioactive waste that we have already generated, 25 years after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a timetable for permanent underground waste repositories and billions of dollars trying to address the issue have been spent, yet there is no resolution in sight. It is this infrequently discussed issue of nuclear waste disposal that this post will attempt to give a background on.
Due to its reputation as a "clean" alternative relative to fossil fuels (extraction of uranium necessary to produce nuclear power still contributes greenhouse gas or co2 to the atmosphere, just much less than burning fossil fuels), nuclear power has recently seen a resurgence in the energy debate in the political arena as our nation continues to look for alternative sources of energy outside the Middle East. Nuclear power however, like all our current energy options, is not a silver bullet for our energy concerns, and comes with a severe list of negatives along with its advantages. The extreme cost of construction of new plants, the diminishing supply of uranium, the threat of nuclear meltdown (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl) and time to plan, design and construct a new plant are all major issues with nuclear power. However, the most immediate issue is the disposal of the nuclear waste that has already been generated; how to store it, where it should go, and how to safely transport it are all major logistical issues that need to be addressed before the next administration throws their support behind new nuclear power plants.
President elect Obama has made it clear during his campaign that new nuclear power plants are on the table as an option to try and address our energy needs, and while I agree there will not be a simple solution to our energy issues, the issue of what to do with the waste we currently have needs to be addressed simultaneously as we proceed addressing our future energy concerns. Currently, although other options such as shooting nuclear waste into space and burying it beneath moving tectonic plates in the ocean floor have been explored, the only feasible solution that could be executed in the short term is the use of Yucca Mountain as a storage site. The government has been studying this site since 1978 as a possible long term storage for nuclear waste, and there have been many pitfalls along the way. First, the logistics of trying to plan for what will happen tens of thousands of years (the time expected for the radiation levels, from the spent rods to be stored there, to drop to harmless levels) in the future are daunting to say the least. There are also issues with the stability of the site since it is located on a fault line and the possibility that the eventual corrosion of the containment tanks that the waste is stored in could leak into the water table, thus contaminating the entire surrounding region. The study and partial construction of the site have already cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and there is no immediate end in sight as there is still dispute over the safety of the site. In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the 10,000 year regulatory time frame was not consistent with National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations and was too short. The NAS report had recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years. By limiting the compliance time to 10,000 years, EPA did not respect a statutory requirement that it develop standards consistent with NAS recommendations.
So, as it currently stands, Yucca Mountain still has not been approved for storage of nuclear waste 30 years after studies on the location began, and nuclear waste around the country continues to pile up in on site containment tanks that were not designed for long term storage, and are either at or near capacity. Taking the "not in my backyard" stance that is a constant when it comes to waste disposal, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada (where Yucca Mountain is located), is committed to killing the project. However, if he is successful, the question still remains, what do we do with the waste? This is an important issue, that like the energy shortage, does not have any easy answers or quick fixes, but as a corollary to the energy discussion it must be addressed before our country decides to build any future nuclear power plants.
My previous post about this incident was mainly an overview of what happened, and a brief overview of the lack of "clean coal" plants despite a massive marketing and advertising campaign. As a followup to that, news is out today that lawsuits are beginning to be filed against the Tennessee Valley Authority. You can read about the first of what should be many at Democracynow.org .
Unfortunately however, the $165 million lawsuit was filed by land developers, who are claiming that the land was devalued by the coal ash spill. While it is good that such a lawsuit is filed to hopefully influence the Tennessee Valley Authority to rethink their waste containment and treatment, there will certainly be more people affected and injured by this spill than 4 land developers. I would much prefer to see the people's homes that were affected by the disaster as well the fisherman and surrounding communities that use the now contaminated water source to take part in the lawsuit, hopefully their day in court that will come later.
So far the lack of mainstream media coverage has lead to conflicting reports on the toxicity of the water and the air quality (TVA is claiming that water and air quality is safe, while the EPA has found arsenic levels in the water to be 149 times the safe level, which is not at all surprising). However, if indeed the water quality of the Emory River (which the spill dumped into, and as a main tributary to the Tennessee River could affect fish populations and water quality for a massive amount of people), is as toxic the EPA thinks, there will be a lot more people effected than just the 4 real estate developers by this massive spill.
Regardless of who profits from a lawsuit, the bottom line remains the same. If our country is going to solve our energy problems, coal is simply not the answer. The threat of similar accidents combined with the inherent environmental damage caused by extraction and the non existence of plants that can recycle their emissions (thus making them "clean") will hopefully be enough for the new administration to say no to the further construction of coal plants.
To join in to support the United Mountain Defense (a local volunteer environmental group that is on the scene assisting with clean up) go here , and join in petition of a complete and restitutive cleanup by the TVA.
Posts
