ThinkLady

Jim Roth unravels special interests on climate-change bill

I admire Jim Roth for attempting to make sense of the confusing array of special interests lobbying on the complex climate-change bill currently before our nation's Senate. In an opinion piece in the Journal Record today, Roth provides a rational and much-needed service to Oklahoma by providing enough facts and context to place this complicated issue in perspective. Some highlights:

• Environmental groups initially united are now somewhat divided after the House version passed. Some welcomed the bill, while others criticized the generous concessions to the coal and nuclear energy lobbies.
• One of the nation’s most outspoken climate scientists, NASA’s James Hansen, warned, “The danger is that special interests will dilute and torque government policies, causing the climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on the planet.”
• No group exemplifies the level of interest more than the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity [a front-group with an oxymoron for a name]. Representing 48 mining firms, coal-hauling railroads and coal-burning power companies, ACCCE spent $9.95 million lobbying in 2008. And that’s just the amount disclosed by the association, let alone the 40 coal companies and related interests.
• Electricity is largest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the most carbon-intensive fuel, coal, still provides half the nation’s power. There’s no technology today that removes the carbon out of coal-fired power and many even question the possibility of “clean coal.”
• Green groups like the Sierra Club have been joined by a new wave of interests from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Evangelical Environmental Network. Combine alternative energy and environmental/health lobbyists, and they are still outnumbered by all other interests, more than 8-to-1.
• Do we move forward with this legislation, even if imperfect, and try to improve it as it goes along in the Senate? The alternative choice is to have no comprehensive federal legislation and let our children deal with it.

ThinkLady Note: Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the world's scientists say human-caused climate change is happening now. Many are concerned we'll experience catastrophic consequences if we don't address the problem immediately. One of the world's preeminent climatologists, James Hansen, mentioned above by Roth, has long predicted the changes we're seeing now, and has been correct in 100 percent of his predictions. The New Yorker published an in-depth profile on Hansen in their June 29, 2009 issue, available online to subscribers.

"The Catastrophist," by Elizabeth Kolbert, offers details on Hansen's predictions, his background and his concern that we are past the tipping point for what is known in scientific circles as "dangerous anthropogenic interference" a.k.a D.A.I. From the article:

Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modelling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected. Carbon dioxide isn't just approaching dangerous levels, it is already there. Unless immediate action is taken -- including the shutdown of all the world's coal plants within the next two decades -- the planet will be committed to change on a scale society won't be able to cope with.'This particular problem has become an emergency,' Hansen said.

More highlights from the article on Hansen in an upcoming post.

Amazing feats of urban farming & volatile oil

Two stories, one from the NY Times magazine yesterday on an amazing urban farmer in Milwaukee, Wis., named Will Allen, and the other, one of the top stories in today’s NY Times, on how unprecedented oil price volatility is hampering economic recovery, illustrate the challenges we face. However, in the urban farming piece we also catch a glimpse of the potential for one positive-change model for our food system, and I think it’s hopeful knowing there are projects with elements of Allen’s work in cities and towns throughout Oklahoma.

The piece on oil price volatility illustrates once again the need for grass-roots localization and making our communities more resilient and less vulnerable to oil prices, supply and demand.

Swings in Price of Oil Hobble Forecasting

By Jad Mouawad

NY Times 

The extreme volatility that has gripped oil markets for the last 18 months has shown no signs of slowing down, with oil prices more than doubling since the beginning of the year despite an exceptionally weak economy.

Highlights:

· “To call this extreme volatility might be an understatement,” said Laura Wright, the chief financial officer at Southwest Airlines, a company that has sought to insure itself against volatile prices by buying long-term oil contracts. “Over the past 15 to 18 months, this has been unprecedented. I don’t think it can be easily rationalized.”

· But to Jeroen van der Veer, who retired as chief executive officer of Royal Dutch Shell last week, prices are increasingly dictated by long-term assessments of supply and demand, rather than current market fundamentals. He advised taking a long-term view of the market.

· “Oil has never been very stable,” Mr. van der Veer said. “If you look at history, you have to expect more volatility.”

Complete article here.

Street Farmer

By Elizabeth Royte

NY Times Magazine

Will Allen, a farmer of Bunyonesque proportions, ascended a berm of wood chips and brewer’s mash and gently probed it with a pitchfork. “Look at this,” he said, pleased with the treasure he unearthed. A writhing mass of red worms dangled from his tines. He bent over, raked another section with his fingers and palmed a few beauties.

And a few highlights:

· With seeds planted at quadruple density and nearly every inch of space maximized to generate exceptional bounty, Growing Power is an agricultural Mumbai, a supercity of upward-thrusting tendrils and duct-taped infrastructure.

· If inside the greenhouse was Eden, outdoors was, as Allen explained on a drive through the neighborhood, “a food desert.” Scanning the liquor stores in the strip malls, he noted: “From the housing project, it’s more than three miles to the Pick’n Save. That’s a long way to go for groceries if you don’t have a car or can’t carry stuff. And the quality of the produce can be poor.” Fast-food joints and convenience stores selling highly processed, high-calorie foods, on the other hand, were locally abundant. “It’s a form of redlining,” Allen said. “We’ve got to change the system so everyone has safe, equitable access to healthy food.”

· Allen, too, has achieved a certain momentum for his efforts to bring the good-food movement to the inner city. In the last several years, he has become a darling of the foundation world. In 2005, he received a $100,000 Ford Foundation leadership grant. In 2008, the MacArthur Foundation honored Allen with a $500,000 “genius” award. And in May, the Kellogg Foundation gave Allen $400,000 to create jobs in urban agriculture.

· “We need 50 million more people growing food,” Allen told them, “on porches, in pots, in side yards.” The reasons are simple: as oil prices rise, cities expand and housing developments replace farmland, the ability to grow more food in less space becomes ever more important. As Allen can’t help reminding us, with a mischievous smile, “Chicago has 77,000 vacant lots.” (NOTE: This made me wonder many how vacate lots Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Edmond, Norman, Stillwater, Shawnee, Broken Arrow, Bartlesville, Tahlequah, Woodward, Clinton, etc. might have?)

· “Not everyone can grow food,” Allen acknowledged. But he offers other ways of engaging with the soil: “You bring 30 people out here, bring the kids and give them good food,” he said, “and picking up those rocks is a community event.”

· This nondogmatic approach may be one of Allen’s most appealing qualities. His essential view is that people do the best they can: if they don’t have any better food choices than KFC, well, O.K. But let’s work on changing that. If they don’t know what to do with okra, Growing Power stands ready to help.

· If there’s no place in the food movement for low- and middle-income people of all races, says Tom Philpott, food editor of Grist.org and co-founder of the North Carolina-based Maverick Farms, “we’ve got big problems, because the critics will be proven right — that this is a consumption club for people who’ve traveled to Europe and tasted fine food.”

· … Growing Power isn’t self-sufficient. But neither is industrial agriculture, which relies on price supports and government subsidies. Moreover, industrial farming incurs costs that are paid by society as a whole: the health costs of eating highly processed foods, for example, or water pollution. Nor can Growing Power be compared to other small farms, because it provides so many intangible social benefits to those it reaches. “It’s not operated as a farm,” said Ian Marvy, executive director of Brooklyn’s Added Value farm, which shares many of Growing Power’s core values but produces less food. “It has a social, ecological and economic bottom line.” That said, Marvy says that anyone can replicate Allen’s technical systems — the worm composting and aquaponics — for relatively little money.

· Allen predicts that because of high unemployment and the recent food scares, 10 million people will plant gardens for the first time this year. But two million of them will eventually drop out, he said, when the potato bugs arrive or the rain doesn’t cooperate. Still, he was sanguine. “The experience will introduce those folks to what a tomato really tastes like, so next time they’ll buy one at their greenmarket. And when we talk about farm-worker rights, we’ll have more advocates for them.”

Complete article here.

Will Oklahoma miss the boat on expanding passenger rail service?

Woke up to news from Passenger Rail Oklahoma, a grass-roots advocacy organization working for the expansion of passenger rail service in Oklahoma and the surrounding region. If you're so inclined, I encourage a call in support of resolution OK-SJR-35 (read more about it below), which is struggling to make it to the Oklahoma house floor for a vote.

Given our energy challenge, or what Bill McKibben calls being '' ... stuck between a played-out rock and a hot place," seems darn short-sighted to hold this resolution up based on partisan b.s. Expanding passenger rail service will make our state and region so much more resilient and less vulnerable to volatile energy supplies and pricing.

I always hope representatives of either party will find ways to work together for smart solutions. Unfortunately, this year has demonstrated many of our reps, mostly in the GOP, to be hopelessly rigid, incurious and seemingly mired in unthinking partisanship. Sigh.

Anyway, about that resolution, from Evan Stair, executive director, Passenger Rail Oklahoma:

OK-SJR-35, a Senate Resolution authored by Senator John Sparks is failing in the House of Representatives. The resolution passed in the State Senate 39-3 March 10. Both the House and Senate have attached a 'Do Pass' recommendation to the resolution.
However, the bill likely will not be brought to a floor vote because of partisan politics. The Oklahoma 2009 legislative session ends soon. Please contact the below individuals and express that you would like to see this Resolution brought to a House Floor vote.

While this is a bill intended to grease the skids of Amtrak expansion support for the 2010 legislature, there are components that would require ODOT to act with regard to development of a Rail Plan, essential to garnering federal funding through the Stimulus Bill and the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2008 (PRIIA). If this resolution fails it could therefore jeopardize Oklahoma federal funding with Oklahoma once again becoming a donor state to passenger rail funding.

This Resolution:

• Urges ODOT to participate in the Kansas Amtrak Expansion Feasibility Study
• Urges ODOT to develop a comprehensive passenger rail plan
• Distributes copies to Governor Henry, Governor Parkinson KS, members of the Kansas and Oklahoma Congressional delegation

Who to call:

House Speaker Chris Benge
Room 401
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 557-7340

Speaker Pro Tempore
Kris Steele
Room 411
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 557-7345

Representative Tad Jones
Majority Floor Leader
Room 442
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 557-7380

Turn off, tune out, drop in

Article in Boston globe this a.m. about young professionals giving up digital gadgets and getting along just fine -- thank you very much -- without them. Discusses benefits, downsides.

These young adults say being less digitally connected means they are actually more connected to an inner life, doing things they truly enjoy, and to each other, raising lots of provocative questions about how society in general views the real meaning of being connected.

Along with pocketing mounds of that precious commodity known as time, they're also using less energy and stuff.

Money quotes:

"A small group of people are reacting to what is overload," Whybrow says. "They are fascinated by this initially . . . but after a while, they find it erodes time as opposed to saving time, and time is the only thing we've really got that is our own. If you become consumed by new technology and forget you are fundamentally creatures of the natural world, you do end up diminishing your life."

"It's not that I don't like doing these things," Alan says. "It's that I like them too much, and have a hard time setting limits. And then I feel frustrated at the end of the evening when I haven't accomplished or learned anything."

"I feel a little bit like a prisoner to it," Seaward says. "It's very useful - there's no denying that - but I think we also lose something. The more things become fast-paced, the less able we are to understand complex arguments, to concentrate on long artworks, like a symphony, or read a long novel."

Rebecca Norman, 22, lives in an apartment with two other seniors at UMass-Amherst. They have no television. Norman sends texts only if it's urgent. She tried Facebook briefly but opted out. "I find the whole thing very voyeuristic ..."

I can certainly see several sides in this issue. The Web and its applications can be great tools, i.e. the work of the Oklahoma Food Cooperative, Sustainable OKC, Oklahoma Sustainability
Network, all depend in varying degrees on the digital world.

Working in the communications industry as I do demands digital and techno savviness, which can be incredibly enjoyable (for many reasons), which also means it can be soooo addictive, argghh. I hate that ... when human nature is so ... human.

The idea of running counter clockwise to the mainstream norm is also beguiling, appealing. My guess is we all dream of and yearn for a simpler life at some point in the hectic scramble that tends to be our modern lives.

Developing a balanced routine maybe part of the answer to the equation. How do we do it? As we use all these digital tools, when do we cross the line into unbalanced and unhinged?

I try to make myself turn it all off - computer, TV, music, cell phone several times a week and just sit and listen to the world for five minutes. I take a walk in my garden and pull weeds, watch the bees, sit in the grass. And periodically I make myself just walk away from it all on weekends. It's useful.

What are your tips and thoughts on finding balance in a digitally driven world?

To infinity and beyond

I love Buzz Lightyear. His optimism in the face of reality (believing he can fly on pop-up wings), makes this diminutive Toy Story hero full of geeky bravura and sincerity incredibly endearing. But it is his mouse-sized roar of “To infinity and beyond” that makes him my way cool, sustainable hero.

You’ve probably noticed energy discussions are as ubiquitous as chewing gum these days. The growing awareness we’ve got to do something has folks from cowpokes to CEOs grappling with their “holy electricity switch” moment, that dark point in time they realize cheap, easy energy days are floating away like so many plastic Wal-Mart bags in a sweeping prairie wind.

But start talking about designing sustainable energy systems and things get considerably dicier. While just about everyone supports being energy independent, the notion that the equivalent of Star Trek’s dilithium crystals will be found to satisfy our energy addiction is so deeply embedded in our psyche that some of our elected leaders tend to grasp at any energy solution like desperate junkies in need of a fix. 

The recent deceptive blathering about nuclear power in Oklahoma’s House of Representatives is a perfect case in point. Two bills were approved by the House Energy and Utility Regulation Committee Feb. 17 after nuclear energy advocates manipulated the fear factor that other energy sources alone such as solar, wind and geothermal, will not be enough to meet future power needs.

While there are many reasons nuclear energy is not a sustainable option (and reasons why other truly clean renewable energies like wind and solar are), one of the most under discussed reasons for axing nuclear energy out of any future energy mix is this -- nuclear energy production is totally dependent on yet another finite resource – uranium. Dr. David Fleming, author of “The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy,” estimates if the entire world’s electricity were generated by nuclear power, we’d have around three years of uranium left and writes:

“Shortages of uranium - and the lack of realistic alternatives - leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.”

Clearly nuclear energy is not a Buzz Lightyear, “infinity and beyond” option. And even more obviously, we need to dig deep into proposed energy solutions and thoroughly evaluate them with a stringent list of sustainable criteria.

A few thoughts on the criteria:

• Are the resource(s) used to produce the energy finite or virtually infinite? Let's learn some lessons this time around from over-reliance on finite resources like oil, natural gas, and coal and develop the virtually infinite instead.
• What is the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) for the resource?

• What is the carbon footprint of the energy source?

• What is the water footprint of the energy source?
• What is the waste footprint of the energy source?
• With all environmental, waste, water, infrastructure and production costs factored in, how much does the energy cost per kilowatt hour?
• Since taxpayers subsidize our energy systems, who will profit and how much, i.e. what are the CEO and executive staff salaries, perks and bonuses of the energy producing company, and what is the anticipated return to shareholders on new infrastructure?
• Are the energy company’s middle and lower-level employees sustainably and equitably compensated with living wages and adequate benefits?
• How will the proposed energy source impact the area where production is located, the people, non-human animals, eco-system and general environment?
• What other factors do we need to be thinking about?

As Rob Hopkins notes in “The Transition Handbook,” a future with less energy is inevitable. Richard Heinberg extensively covers many of the various pros and cons of a variety of energy sources in his latest Museletter, which beautifully illustrates the depths of the challenges facing us and the urgent need for massive energy conservation programs.

The Transition Movement, founded by Hopkins, takes these realities and helps us see them as opportunities for creatively rethinking how we live in the world and how we use energy, to envision something better, something hopeful, less toxic to ourselves, to our fellow species and congruent with this amazing planet we call home. The first Transition Town initiative in Oklahoma, Transition Town OKC, launched last month, aims to enhance opportunities for our communities to imagine, envision and implement this energy transition together, to capture the power of every person's creativity and move us together toward a positive future.

We know reducing energy consumption will go a long way toward solving the energy puzzle, as will investment in energy technology and clean, truly renewable energy resources, but every energy technology and resource needs an adequate and thorough vetting using sustainable criteria. And that means thinking not just about the next 10, 20 or even 50 years, but in Buzz Lightyear speak, “To Infinity and beyond.”