Sunday, February 24, 2013

Help me, President Obama...


It’s been an interesting two weeks.  I’ve had quite a few moments of sheer dumbfoundedness, many relating to topics that inform my research for and work on Team Climate. 

In a testimony for a bill to expand net metering (Senate bill 247) at the Montana legislature, Northwestern Energy made clear that they are not fans of net metering.  In fact, it seems that NWE believes that net metering is a “subsidy for the upper middle class and the wealthy of society, paid for by other ratepayers.”  The NWE spokesperson called it a “nuisance” and an “experiment in social engineering”.  As Montana’s largest electric utility,

That’s not the only “…what the…?” instance I came across this week.  Again from my home state (I’m so proud…), House Bill Number 549: “…global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana.”  That’s on par with North Carolina legislating against sea level rise.  As if we can pass a law to turn facts into opinion.  I particularly enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek with both of these articles—they are worth the read.  “Cigarettes killing too many people? Write a law saying they don't! Think gravity is an unnecessary burden on our airline industry? Let's vote it away! Evolution doesn't fit your religious beliefs? Outlaw it!”

A recent Environmental Leader article outlines the bottom line costs of countless delays or roadblocks for renewable energy projects in “The Real Cost of NIMBYism”.  The author cites a statistic from an initiative called Project No Project (conspicuously an initiative of the US Chamber of Commerce—will have to look deeper into that), which “assesses the broad range of energy projects that are being stalled, stopped, or outright killed nationwide due to “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) activism, a broken permitting process and a system that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development”: Project No Project estimates that in the short term the 351 projects analyzed could produce $1.1 trillion for the economy and create 1.9 million jobs a year. Also once these projects are created and established, they are estimated to produce $145 billion and create 791,000 jobs.  That’s a lot of money.  And a lot of jobs. 

All seriousness aside (or all jokes?  It’s hard to tell these days with such radical topics), I did come across a few exciting initiatives that I hope will gain traction.  The first article that gives me hope is a new partnership between Honda/Acura and Solar City, where Honda/Acura customers can purchase a solar system at little or no upfront cost in exchange for a long-term contract in which the customer pays a fixed fee for the electricity generated, set at less than the customer would pay for power from the local utility.  Honda will provide $65M in financing for installation of new systems.  The customer gets cheaper power and doesn’t have to front the money—what’s not to like? 

The second one caught me by the title alone: “Won’t you be my solar-power-buying neighbor?”.  It questions why Germany, which has 15% less annual sun than Puget Sound, is kicking our ass in the solar arena.  They have great incentives, and solar is accessible to everyone—it has become the norm.  Solarize Washington is following Germany’s lead and piloting an effort to build critical mass to make solar more accessible in the PNW.  The project has incentives aplenty: 30% federal tax credit; state sales tax exemption if a solar system is purchased by June 30th; annual production incentive capped at five thousand a year through June 2020; and fifteen cents per kilowatt hour for solar systems made out of state and fifty-four cents per kilowatt hour for those made in-state.

Another reason the solar in Germany is so successful is that it is also primarily distributed, community owned power, not corporation or utility owned; individuals or communities own 51% of solar in Germany, and over 100 rural communities are now powered by 100% renewable energy.  It’s a David and Goliath story, where Germany is David and the U.S. is Goliath: “The US is slowly switching to renewables, but it is nearly completely shutting out the little guy, with only two percent of installed wind power capacity not owned by giant corporations. And when it comes to solar in the US, almost everything is utility-scale plants. The changes in Germany are driven by the little guy, whereas the renewable industry in the US is controlled by some of the world’s biggest multinational companies.”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been to Germany.  It’s gray.  And rainy.  If solar can triumph there, then why can’t we make it work here?  The little guys and gals in this country need to band together and drive the change that we need. 

Perhaps the most uplifting read was from OnEarth on President Obama’s message to Congress: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”  The article outlines the various options for action either with Congress on board, or actions he can take that don’t need congressional approval.  Let’s hope that Obama’s David can triumph over the congressional Goliath.  Help me, President Obama.  You’re my only hope.  


Sunday, February 10, 2013

The World's a Mess but I'm Busy.


Here among team climate, there is a long-standing shared priority/joke/frustration: how do we get people to connect their short-term actions with long-term ramifications?  Why is this such a hard thing to understand?  Is it denial? Do people genuinely believe that there is no cause for alarm?  Is it belief overshadowed by the feeling of insignificance, being overwhelmed by the immensity of climate change and feeling that nothing we do will make a difference?  Is it because people feel there are other, more pressing issues to address first?  Is it that we just don’t give a sh*t?



The throwaway society depicted by Life Magazine in 1955 heralded single use products and the “liberation of the American housewife”.   This only fueled the fire of consumerism, and propelled us down a path of resource depletion and a sense of entitlement for whatever the Earth may provide.

It seems that lately concern for environmental issues has been on the decline.  A recent GreenBiz article explains why we’re tuned out to environmental crises.   GlobeScan’s environmental polling points to the severe economic strife over the past several years: “The full ramifications of the banking collapses, ensuing government bailouts and cripplingly high levels of public indebtedness that have resulted have only slowly become apparent. And bluntly, for many citizens, these appear to pose a much clearer and more present threat to their well-being than environmental jeopardy, which for most people remains hidden from view.”  Barely half of those polled considered climate change a “very serious problem”.   The article also highlights the challenges with misinformation and contradictions: the oil shortage coinciding with the shale boom, species loss being widely exaggerated, and faulty figures on glacier melt in the Himalayas issued by the IPCC, which is supposed to be the expert on such things. 



In another article exploring denial as a barrier to sustainable change, the author talks about meeting with chief executives in the U.K. to discuss sustainability.  From one executive he got this reaction: “…in the current difficult economic climate we are unable to talk about sustainability issues in the public domain because shareholders would view it as us taking our eye off the ball of short term profits growth.”  Yikes. 

He concludes with a bit of positivity, looking at an inter-disciplinary approach to the problem, including neuroscience, positive psychology and Buddhism.  His interview with Thich Nhat Hanh revealed some harsh reality coupled with optimism:  "When they see the truth it is too late to act ... but they don't want to wake up because it may make them suffer; they cannot confront the truth. It is not that they don't know what is going to happen. They just don't want to think about it.  They want to get busy in order to forget. We should not talk in terms of what they should do, what they should not do, for the sake of the future. We should talk to them in such a way that touches their hearts, which helps them to engage on the path that will bring them true happiness, the path of love and understanding, the courage to let go. When they have tasted a little bit of peace and love, they may wake up."

Then there are the challenges of false optimism and the psychology of climate change denial.  We must understand why it’s important to not gloss over the issues, and enable people to sit with the difficult reality of a changing world.  True, Pacific Islands that will be underwater in a decade are distant and abstract to most of us; does this change when we start to see the effects of climate change in our own back yard?  One would think so; alas, this isn’t always the case.  Nic Marks, creator of the Happy Planet Index, helps outline the issues: "What we now see is climate change skepticism increasing as the science base increases, so what's happening is people are mentally fleeing the problem because they're frightened. It's too difficult; it's too big to deal with, so they'd rather believe it doesn't exist and that scientists have got it wrong.”

So where do we go from here?  Do we paint a rosy picture, to give people hope for the future and the feeling that “every CFL counts”?  Do we continue with doom and gloom?  Or do we just stick our head in the sand, and ignore the oncoming freight train?  I’m hoping we can get our collective sh*t together and quit being so apathetic.


Sunday, February 3, 2013

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone...




Climate Change is such a big, overwhelming, seemingly unfixable problem at times.  So in light of optimism, I’m shifting it up a bit this week to talk about some of the amazing and innovative new technologies being explored.  There are too many to include in one post, so perhaps I’ll revisit this topic when I start to get depressed and need some inspiration instead (like when I read about energy innovations from the MIT Technology Review and the headline states: “Notable advances in renewable energy pale compared to the impact of shale gas.”  Sigh.   

How about solar paint that can be painted onto any surface?  Wind turbines that are based on the shape of whale and dolphin flippers, capitalizing on the vortices formed in their wakes?



Hairy solar panels inspired by moth’s eyes, creating a design to mimic their anti-reflectivity, or butterfly wings and their honeycomb structures that increase the efficiency of light harvesting?  



Or what about an underwater turbine that can generate energy from the tidal currents or ocean waves? 


Biofuels from algae, that can grow anywhere, multiply quickly and produce 15 times more oil per acre than other biofuel fodder such as corn or switch grass? 

NASA is developing a plane wing that could cut fuel consumption in half compared to traditional aircraft.  This would have an extraordinary impact on emissions, given the global society we have created. 

One that is certainly intriguing is Cool Planet Biofuels, an up and coming startup funded by Google, BP, General Electric, and ConocoPhillips, among others.  Cool Planet’s founder, Mike Cheiky, claims his biotechnology can create limitless, inexpensive gasoline with negative emissions, while creating arable land at the same time.  The process, being tested at a small scale, takes biomass, turns it into gasoline, then uses plant photosynthesis to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
“Our proprietary biomass fractionator technology extracts useful hydrocarbons from biomass leaving behind the excess carbon as a high purity solid. The process generates activated carbon with a very high surface area which will allow it to be used as a soil enhancer creating soil similar to "terra preta." By burying this carbon in an appropriate manner, we can greatly enhance soil fertility while sequestering carbon for hundreds of years. In contrast, normal plant decomposition occurs in just a few years, releasing the plant's carbon as CO2 and even more harmful methane gas. Our process yields about the same amount of carbon as gasoline so, if we sequester this carbon as a soil enhancer, or simply bury it as coal, the associated fuel has a full Carbon Negative Rating.”
Is this too good to be true?  Only time will tell.  At least they have some big money behind them to give it a legitimate try.

Solar Roadways is a company I’m pulling for; if their technology catches on it will kill two birds with one stone, and revolutionize our relationship with both transportation (a huge contributor to global warming) and energy consumption.  The concept is simple—replace asphalt and concrete surfaces with solar panels that can be driven on.  It has evolved to include LED lights to make up the “painted” lines, and a heating element to prevent snow and ice from accumulating on the roadway.  They are currently building a prototype parking lot.  I am particularly fond of this one since they live in Sandpoint Idaho, my neighbors to the northwest, and are just regular (albeit super smart) people whose idea has the potential to change the world.