Sunday, April 29, 2007

Paper or Plastic? Just Say NO!

In a recent blog post by Peter Gregory, he advocates charging consumers for the luxury of fast food take-out supplies. He like many others, is simply tired of cleaning up other people’s discarded food packaging trash. The concept is in lock-step with most environmentalists that believe in the principle of “polluters pays”: those who pollute should pay for the true cost of generating the pollution and cleaning it up.

Pollution is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure. Even the lowly plastic grocery bag has value to some people. When you return it to the store from which it came, it will likely be recycled into another product such as parking lot space tire curbs, playground equipment and most anything else that can be made with polyethylene.

The greater likelihood is that it will end up in a landfill or somewhere in nature where is harms wildlife and litters roadsides, streams, and sewers.

Imagine a world without flimsy plastic bags. It isn’t hard since they weren’t introduced until about 1977. Life will go on and we’d be better off without them.

The U.S. throws away about 100 BILLION bags each year. The manufacturing of plastic bags accounts for 4 per cent of the world’s total oil production.(1)

People are starting to get fed up about our love affair with the tragedy of the commons. Europe is levying significant taxes on the bags and San Francisco has banned them. South Africa, Taiwan and Bangladesh have also banned plastic bags. Paris will outlaw them by the end of 2007, and all of France will ban the bags in 2010. Phoenix and Boston are considering similar bans. Other USA communities are requiring use of thicker and stronger bags that cost more and motivate businesses to be less generous with their free distribution of the materials.

What should your local government do about the problem? The alleged pro-business solution is, of course, to ‘educate the public.’ Sorry, that just doesn’t work. Tell me, have we managed to prevent litter through cradle-to-grave anti-litter campaigns? No. If it affects your pocket book directly, you it sit-up and take notice. That is why Europe has pursued taxing plastic bags, and why US cities do so little more than establish ineffectual education programs because they a) don’t want consumers to ‘sacrifice' and b) don’t want to mandate environmental protection measures upon small businesses.

My view? Effective 12 months from passing a city or county law, place a 15 cent tax on plastic bags. The tax will fund year -round litter collection and prevention programs. In so doing, also let the marketplace find a solution that suits business customers. Some stores will help transition customers to cloth and synthetic mesh bags, encourage consumers to re-use their heavy-duty bags and boxes, or offer recycled paper or cellulose/corn-starch derived bags. Others will charge for the bags in addition to the tax. In so doing they will be sending a message that the company shouldn’t subsidize the use of wasteful packaging. It won’t be painless, but it will work. Consumers are price sensitive and when reminded at the point-of-sale of the true cost of wasteful behavior, they respond with intelligence.

All it takes is leadership.

Now, banning plastic bags will not completely solve Peter’s complaint about the other forms of community litter from fast food vendors. That’s another topic for the future.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Sheila Simon Receives Conservation League Endorsement

Illinois Relief Map

The Illinois League of Conservation Voters (ILCV) has endorsed Sheila Simon for Mayor of Carbondale.

Sheila is one of only twelve municipal candidates statewide that has received the coveted endorsement.

ILCV's endorsement decisions were based on the Illinois Environmental Council's scorecard of incumbent's environmental voting records as well as the ILCV's candidate questionnaire that probed candidates' views on pressing environmental issues.

From the LCV website:

The Illinois League of Conservation Voters (ILCV) is the political arm of the environmental movement in Illinois. Through elections, we actively support candidates who promote sustainable economic development and oppose candidates who vote for anti-environmental legislation.

• We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for Illinois.
• We hold elected officials accountable for their actions Environmental actions..
• We build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders

“Sheila Simon is a fantastic example of an experienced leader who understands the essential role environmental conservation plays in sustaining the social and economic health of our cities,” said Amanda Espitia, Executive Director of the ILCV.

Press Release of Simon endorsement

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Council Candidates: Timid Souls

Ballot Box Image

I wrote yesterday about Carbondale’s mayoral candidates’ positions on energy and the environment. If you thought I was disappointed with their inadequate meager ‘action plans’, you should understand why we should be even more disappointed by the candidates for City Council and their lame and archaic remarks about protecting the environment. I seriously wonder if they are channeling for Caspar Milquetoast!

I’ve reviewed all the candidates’ campaign literature that I could locate, as well as their published survey results regarding energy and environment issues hoping to find a glimmer of hope that the next crop of leaders will show more wisdom. If you read the responses to questions posed in the 2007 Carbondale Nightlife council candidate survey, you will likely be disappointed. My primary observation about the statements can be summarized by one simple question, “Have most of them been asleep since 1970?” Do they not know about the bold moves toward building sustainable communities are being undertaken across the nation? Have they not heard of global warming and local government actions in support of the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement? At least the candidates' statements are not as bad as Mayor Cole's record of saying "I do not think investments in photovoltaic energy options would be beneficial to tax payers."

The council candidate's milquetoast and pandering comments are a sad statement on the depth and quality of their thinking about your future.

“(Paul) Simon passionately believes that politicians, the media, religious leaders, and educators have, individually and collectively, abandoned their responsibility to lead. In doing so, says Simon, they have made us vulnerable to future political, moral, and economic disasters.” — Publishers Weekly review of Our Culture of Pandering, 2003.

To not draw unwanted attention from the easily distracted public, candidate statements tend to be platitudes about the importance of being careful and the need for further dialogue. Political consultants advise, above all else, say nothing controversial that might alienate constituents. Consequently, what words of wisdom do we get from Carbondale's candidates? Lewin asserts the safe position that recycling is good for Carbondale. Jack says, “We should strive to be a leader…” Pohlman says, “We should … look to the long-term good…” Haynes says, “we have started the first steps to explore …” Brown says, “The City should research grant programs.” Pretty scary stuff, huh?

The one person showing some original thinking seems to be Luanne Brown when talking about lighting and noise abatement; however, both she and Pohlman dismiss out of hand the possibility of operating a municipal energy distribution system. Why? How did they form that knee-jerk opinion without the City thoroughly investigating the situation?

Five of the six candidates take the safe, but timid position, that the city should defer to the state and federal government to solve our worsening environmental problems. Most, like G.W. Bush, just want to stay the course and talk, talk, talk about the issue until we are distracted by more important news such as, "Who is Anna Nicole's baby's biological father, really?"

The best of the candidates appears to be young Joe Moore. He’ll get my vote. I don’t know if any of the rest have a chance. Moore says, “On the power generation end, we need to increase our use of solar, wind, and thermal power. On the consumption end, we need to be promoting energy efficient products to cut our consumption.” While lacking specifics, he at least ‘gets it’. He sees that energy issues need to be approached from both directions and has an appreciation on how Ameren is hurting the region.

Its truly embarrassing, but only three candidates even mention the words conservation and alternative energy in their survey statements. While three reference the importance of walking, biking, and the current bus system in town, no one specifically talks about Cool Cities, sprawl, other transportation planning issues, telecommuting, purchasing green power, green building codes, encouraging green businesses, solar rights, water and waste management (other than recycling), education and outreach, and dozens of other proven municipal energy policies and projects.

"The electorate, without fail, gets the government it deserves.”

How will you vote? And then, after the election, what will you do?

Friday, April 13, 2007

Mayors Matter: My Pick

Vote April 17th
I have a little experience in energy management, energy conservation and renewable energy. So, when it come to voting for local government leaders to guide our communities to a sustainable future, my obvious preference is to select representatives that understand science and technology and have a vision for taking a smarter energy path than the one that has gotten our nation into such dire straits. The newest report on global warming shows how badly Illinois leaders have done on this issue.

  • Illinois’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption grew from 191.1 million metric tons to 233.8 million metric tons between 1990 and 2004, an increase of 22%. Illinois ranked third nationwide for the largest absolute increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the 15-year period.
  • In Illinois, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants jumped by 64% between 1990 and 2004, rising from 55.7 million metric tons to 91.5 million metric tons. Illinois ranked first nationwide for the largest absolute increase in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants over the 15-year period. (1)
Since the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that we have less than a decade to drastically alter our path to self destruction, I refuse to vote for a candidate that doesn’t understand the urgency to act quickly and responsibly, or who lacks a the personal will and vision to take bold steps to save the planet.

When I look at the records of accomplishment (both personal and business) of Carbondale’s two mayoral candidates, I see some promise in both, but I am also very disappointed in both for doing so little when so much is needed at the local level.

We are working within a new scientific paradigm. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for new technology to save the day, or slowly adopting Commercial Off-the-shelf Technologies (COTS), nor do we have the luxury of addressing environmental issues as a solely feel-good, do what is politically expedient experiment.

Technology, the environment and environmentalists (me included) have changed since the first Earth Day in 1970. Today, when we talk about protecting the environment, we talk about ALL the ramifications of not taking the ‘long view’. We talk about decreasing the incidence of cancers, heart attacks and strokes caused by environmental toxins, eliminating lead and mercury damage to children’s developing brains, reducing waste and converting waste materials into value-added commodities, reducing air particulates that are causing soaring asthma rates, safely eating fish from our local lakes and rivers, building sustainable and efficient transportation systems, and makingsound investments in both energy conservation and renewable energy technology that create jobs and community.

I appreciate Mayor Brad Cole for taking some important baby steps in improving the carbon footprint of the City of Carbondale, for signing the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, considering operation of a municipal power distribution company, proposing to purchase some hybrid vehicles for the City fleet, pursuing funds for an expanded recycling program, installing efficient LED lighting in City street lights, symbolically encouraging bicycle use in the city, and advocating a community clean-up program.

I appreciate Sheila Simon for her initial efforts in promoting bicycle use and an expanded recycling program, advocating for a smoke-free community, for advocating energy audits and installation of photovoltaic power systems on city buildings, and for favoring action consistent with the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement. She prominently lists environmental goals in her campaign platform. "My most immediate goal is to address city government as a consumer of energy. Since all of us together pay the power bill for the city, we have both an economic incentive and an environmental incentive to reduce our energy use. The city can be a leader in energy conservation. The city can also be a leader in some very simple ways to address environmental issues."

Where Sheila Simon failed me was doing far too little at the municipal level and not using the election campaign to address environmental issues in a stronger fashion. The Ameren crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports about human caused global warming, SIU’s proposal to build a new coal-fired power plant, and other ‘teachable moments’ could have been used to highlight how the environment is a local issue needing a strong local response.

Sadly, Mayor Brad Cole did the same thing. Cole further failed me by not taking bold action from his bully pulpit as mayor. He has simply taken the slow, easy and politically expedient path. For example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) unanimously passed the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement on June 13, 2005. I wrote about it in my first blog at the start of the 2007 and shared it with the mayor. About a week later and six months after the USCM took action (nine months after other Illinois cities had already joined the Cool Cities bandwagon), Cole, without any discussion or approval from the Carbondale city council, signed the agreement. Since then, all he has done with it is forward it to the Carbondale Energy and Environmental Advisory Commission – the same City commission that Cole has sought to eliminate.

What I think distinguishes the two candidates on the issues of the environment is that Brad postures as an environmentalist and Shelia embodies it to her core. Sheila rides her bike to work and Brad drives his SUV. Where Sheila prints campaign literature on recycled paper, Brad spends lavishly on non-recycled political junk mail.

I suspect that if I visited either candidate’s homes I could immediately see in action the environmental sensibilities of the candidates. At Sheila’s, I suspect I’d see laundry hanging outside on the line, multiple recycling containers, and a fleet of bikes for all family members and all occasions. It seems unlikely that I'd see that at Brad's place.

Where Sheila believes in investing City funds in renewable resources, Brad says, “I am not sure solar power is a viable option for our location on the globe.” Say what!? Is that due to Brad’s astounding ignorance on the topic or is he simply playing it safe? Where Sheila envisions multiple opportunities for renewable energy applications, Brad comes off looking like a spokesperson for Exxon in both style and substance.

No mayor or city council candidate is perfect. I do not expect elected officials to be energy and environmental engineers, just as I do not expect them to necessarily be CPA’s, bond counselors, legal experts, health administrators, traffic engineers, or business owners. What I am looking for at this point in Carbondale's and the nation’s history is a well-rounded candidate that not only talks-the-talk about saving the planet, but walks-the-walk. On issues of climate, energy and the environment, I want a person that boldly responds to the grave danger we are in and is willing to not only live a sustainable life by example, but also take bold steps to rethink and guide the City of Carbondale into a sustainable future. Of the two candidates for mayor, I believe Sheila Simon is a better person for that crucial leadership role.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The Weather Looks Dim

Photo: Pollution plumes from ocean going ships in the Pacific Ocean

Back when I was in junior high school, I was responsible for recording daily measurements from our school’s weather station and plugging the data into rather unsophisticated weather prediction models to predict the next three days of local weather. Rarely were the predictions accurate beyond 24 hours. With the availability of massive weather databases, super computers and complex algorithms, scientists are increasingly able to now build complex climate models and predict long-term climate change.

That junior weatherman experience helped lead to my interest in understanding solar energy and renewable energy resources. Little did I know that formative weather prediction experience would contribute to my renewed attention forty years later to climate models and predicting the future of civilization.

On March 26th I wrote about the effect of a not well-known phenomenon called global dimming. I feel compelled to return to the subject because of its importance to understanding the very real global emergency that we face. I do so because others and I believe we have less than a decade to make drastic behavioral changes or we will pass the point of no return for saving civilization, as we know it today.

I described global dimming as the reduction of heat from the sun reaching the earth. Look at the accompanying picture of the effect of ocean going vessel exhaust plumes discharging pollution into the Pacific Ocean. It is a small piece of evidence about the direct effect humans have in dimming the sun.

What is the importance of global dimming? It has masked the actual high rate of global warming. It means we have limited time to change our destructive behavior. By we, I mean me, you, our city governments, park districts, state offices and federal bureaucracies, and the nations of the world. This is not a plea worthy of the annual Chicken Little Award. Rather, it is a plea to ask for your deeper understanding of consequences.

In 2006, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) provided in its scientifically authoritative TV series, NOVA, a revealing portrait of the cause, history and consequences of global dimming and its relationship with global climate disruption. Excerpts and a transcript of the program are now available online. There is also an excellent teacher’s curriculum guide available for hands-on understanding of weather. Take a few minutes to understand your planet.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Going The Distance

Fuel Pump Photo

How far can you travel on a gallon of gasoline? For decades the big automakers have thwarted efforts to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standard. They thought they were safe from the winds of change when George W. Bush was elected. They miscalculated and are now, because of their stubborn recalcitrance to improving vehicle fuel efficiency, being told they can expect requirements for significant upgrades to the CAFÉ standards!.

Four factors have caused them to come under the spotlight:

  1. A large increase in crude oil and transportation fuel costs

  2. The loss of political control in the Senate

  3. A miscalculation about their former allies in Congress and the administration, and

  4. The awakening of the electorate to the reality of global climate change.

Suddenly before Congress are proposals for cars to achieve 30 to 35 mpg and the trucks to get at least 23 mpg within the next five years. A competing Senate proposal goes further in calling for a 27 mpg rate for trucks in 2011. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has proposed an across-the-board legislation to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg on both light trucks and cars by model year 2017. Current standards only require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (MPG) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks.

Meanwhile, an independent fuel economy panel is reported to have concluded that SUVs and trucks can be built with substantially better fuel economy, and that U.S. competitiveness would not be impacted by increasing the standard. Auto companies were shocked with that news. Although the panel did not reach a conclusion as to level of the achievable mileage standard, the report said that existing technologies could add as much as 12-14 mpg to cars and 11-13 mpg to trucks.

The auto manufacturers may have been shocked (hardly), but probably not their network dealer owners that hear complaints on the sales floor that customers want to get better mileage. How big has been the outcry? Consider that Hummer dealers are now offering to perform unauthorized modifications to their new vehicles to boost MPG even though doing so violates their own warranty

So what is the average consumer to do while we wait again for Congress to catch up with the needs of the nation? Buyer options are wide.

» Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle such as the hybrid Toyota Prius. Find and compare cars!
» Drive more efficiently.
» Maintain the existing vehicle for optimum efficiency
» Take fewer trips by consolidating trips.
» Move closer to the user’s typical destinations so as to reduce commute and shopping time and distances traveled.
» Stop using the inefficient automobile and either walk, bike, ride-share or use mass transit whenever available.
» Reduce the weight of the vehicle. This is primarily how auto manufacturers have been improving mpg. They’ve gone to thinner windows, aluminum, magnesium and plastic components, lighter frames, and smaller primary and spare wheels and tires. Drivers can keep their vehicles empty of extraneous junk, including those sand bags and concrete blocks used last winter for improved real wheel traction. For every extra 100 pounds you carry in your vehicle, you reduce gas mileage and fuel economy by roughly 2%.
» Buy or lease a hybrid vehicle.
» Already have a hybrid? Convert it to a 150 mpg plug-in hybrid or wait for the anticipated OEM version.
» Retrofit the vehicle for biodiesel or electric use.

You can make a difference in global warming and save money by using transportation fuels efficiently. Every gallon of gasoline saved cuts emissions of carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas, by about 25 pounds.