Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Friday, October 21, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Food And Climate Change
This is an EXCELLENT article from Grain!!
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Food and climate change: The forgotten link
GRAIN | 28 September 2011 | Against the grain
Food is a key driver of climate change. How our food gets produced and how it ends up on our tables accounts for around half of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. Chemical fertilizers, heavy machinery and other petroleum-dependant farm technologies contribute significantly. The impact of the food industry as a whole is even greater: destroying forests and savannahs to produce animal feed and generating climate-damaging waste through excess packaging, processing, refrigeration and the transport of food over long distances, despite leaving millions of people hungry.
A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. People around the world are involved in struggles to defend or create ways of growing and sharing food that are healthier for their communities and for the planet. If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system around food sovereignty, small scale farming, agro-ecology and local markets, we could cut global emissions in half within a few decades. We don’t need carbon markets or techno-fixes. We need the right policies and programmes to dump the current industrial food system and create a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one instead.
Food and climate: piecing the puzzle together
Most studies put the contribution of agricultural emissions – the emissions produced on the farm - at somewhere between 11 and 15% of all global emissions.[1] What often goes unsaid, however, is that most of these emissions are generated by industrial farming practices that rely on chemical (nitrogen) fertilizers, heavy machinery run on petrol, and highly concentrated industrial livestock operations that pump out methane waste.
The figures for agriculture's contribution also often do not account for its role in land use changes and deforestation, which are responsible for nearly a fifth of global GHG emissions.[2] Worldwide, agriculture is pushing into savannas, wetlands, cerrados and forests, plowing under huge amounts of land. The expansion of the agricultural frontier is the dominant contributor to deforestation, accounting for between 70-90% of global deforestation.[3] This means that some 15-18% of global GHG emissions are produced by land-use change and deforestation caused by agriculture. And here too, the global food system and its industrial model of agriculture are the chief culprits. The main driver of this deforestation is the expansion of industrial plantations for the production of commodities such as soy, sugarcane, oilpalm, maize and rapeseed.
Since 1990, the area planted with these five commodity crops grew by 38%[4] though land planted to staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
Emissions from agriculture account for only a portion of the food system's overall contribution to climate change. Equally important is what happens from between the time food leaves the farm until it reaches our tables.
Food is the world's biggest economic sector, involving more transactions and employing more people by far than any other. These days food is prepared and distributed using enormous amounts of processing, packaging and transportation, all of which generateGHG emissions, although data on such emissions are hard to find. Studies looking at the EU conclude that about one quarter of overall transportation involves commercial food transport[5] The scattered figures on transportation available for other countries, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, indicate that the percentage is even higher in non-industrialised countries, where food production and delivery accounts for 60-80% of the total energy - human plus animal plus fuel – used.”[6] With transportation accounting for 25% of global GHG emissions, we can use the EU data to conservatively estimate that the transport of food accounts for at least 6% of global GHG emissions. When it comes to processing and packaging, again the available data is mainly from the EU, where studies show that the processing and packaging of food accounts for between 10-11% of GHG emissions,[7] while refrigeration of food accounts for 3-4% [8]of total emissions and food retail another 2%.[9]
Playing it conservative with the EU figures and extrapolating from the scarce figures that exist for other countries, we can estimate that at least 5-6% of emissions are due to food transport, 8-10% due to food processing and packaging, around 1-2% due to refrigeration, and 1-2% due to retail. This gives us a total contribution of 15-20% of global emissions from these activities.
Not all of what the food system produces gets consumed. The industrial food system discards up to half of all the food that it produces, in its journey from farms to traders, to food processors, to stores and supermarkets. This is enough to feed the world’s hungry six times over.[10] A lot of this waste rots away on garbage heaps and landfills, producing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Different studies indicate that somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5 of global GHG emissions come from waste, and that over 90% of them come from materials originating in agriculture and their processing.[11] This means that the decomposition of organic waste originating in food and agriculture is responsible for 3-4% of global GHG emissions.
Add the above figures together, factor up the evidence, and there is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human produced greenhouse gas emissions: anywhere between a low of 44% to a high of 57%. The graph below illustrates the conclusion:
Turning the food system upside down
Clearly, we will not get out of the climate crisis if the global food system is not urgently and dramatically transformed. The place to start is with the soil.
Food begins and ends with soil. It grows out of the soil and eventually goes back in it to enable more food to be produced. This is the very cycle of life. But in recent years humans have ignored this vital cycle. We have been taking from the soil without giving back.The industrialisation of agriculture, starting in Europe and North America, replicating later through the Green Revolution in other parts of the world, was based on the assumption that soil fertility could be maintained and increased through the use of chemical fertilisers. Little attention was paid to the importance of organic matter in the soil.
A wide range of scientific reports indicate that cultivated soils have lost from 30 to 75% of their organic matter during the 20th century, while soils under pastures and prairies have typically lost up to 50%. There is no doubt that these losses have provoked a serious deterioration of soil fertility and productivity, as well as contributing to worsening droughts and floods.
Taking as a basis some of the most conservative figures provided by scientific literature, the global accumulated loss of soil organic matter over the last century may be estimated to be between 150 to 200 billion tonnes.[12] Not all this organic matter ended up in the air as CO2, as significant amounts have been washed away by erosion and have been deposited in the bottom of rivers and oceans. However, it can be estimated that at least 200 to 300 billion tonnes of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere due to the global destruction of soil organic matter. In other words, 25 to 40% of the current excess of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the destruction of soils and its organic matter.
There is some good news hidden in these devastating figures. The CO2 that we have sent into the atmosphere by depleting the world's soils can be put back into the soil. All that is required is a change of agricultural practices. We have to move away from practices that destroy organic matter to practices that build-up the organic matter in the soil.
We know this can be done. Farmers around the world have been engaging in these very practices for generations. GRAIN research has shown that, if the right policies and incentives were in place worldwide, soil organic matter contents could be restored to pre-industrial agriculture levels within a period of 50 years – which is roughly the same time frame that industrial agriculture took to reduce it.[13] The continuing use of these practices would allow the offset of between 24-30% of current global annual GHG emissions[14].
The new scenario would require a radical change in approach from the current industrial agriculture model. It would focus on the use of techniques such as diversified cropping systems, better integration between crop and animal production, increased incorporation of trees and wild vegetation, and so on. Such an increase in diversity would, in turn, increase the production potential, and the incorporation of organic matter would progressively improve soil fertility, creating virtuous cycles of higher productivity and higher availability of organic matter. The capacity of soil to hold water would increase, which would mean that excessive rainfall would lead to fewer, less intense floods and droughts. Soil erosion would become less of a problem. Soil acidity and alkalinity would fall progressively, reducing or eliminating the toxicity that has become a major problem in tropical and arid soils. Additionally, increased soil biological activity would protect plants against pests and diseases. Each one of these effects implies higher productivity and hence more organic matter available to soils, thus making possible, as the years go by, higher targets for soil organic matter incorporation. More food would be produced in the process.
To be able to do it, we would need to build on the skills and experience of the world's small farmers, rather than undermining them and forcing them off their lands, as is now the case.
A global shift towards an agriculture that builds up organic matter in the soil would also put us on a path to removing some of the other major sources of GHGs from the food system. There are three other mutually reinforcing shifts that need to take place in the food system to address its overall contribution to climate change: The first is a shift to local markets and shorter circuits of food distribution, which will cut back on transportation and the need for packaging, processing and refrigeration. The second is a reintegration of crop and animal production, to cut back on transportation, the use of chemical fertilisers and the production of methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by intensive meat and dairy operations. And the third is the stopping of land clearing and deforestation, which will require genuine agrarian reform and a reversal of the expansion of monoculture plantations for the production of agrofuels and animal feed.
If the world gets serious about putting these four shifts into action, it is quite possible that we can cut global GHG emissions in half within a few decades and, in the process, go a long way towards resolving the other crises affecting the planet, such as poverty and hunger. There are no technical hurdles standing in the way-- the knowledge and skills are in the hands of the world's farmers and we can build on that. The only hurdles are political, and this is where we need to focus our efforts.
Notes
[1] The IPCC says 10-12%, the OECD says 14% and the WRI says 14.9%. See:
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 8: Agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/ms4mzb
- Wilfrid Legg and Hsin Huang. OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Climate change and agriculture, http://tinyurl.com/5u2hf8k
- WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe
[2] See: WRI, World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, http://tinyurl.com/2fmebe And: IPCC. 2004. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: 3.4.2 Consequences of Land-use Change. http://tinyurl.com/6lduxqy
[3] See FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products – Forty ninth Session – Bakubung, South Africa, 10 June 2008; and M. Kanninen et al., "Do trees grow on Money? Forest Perspective 4, CIFOR, Jakarta, 2007.
[4] See: GRAIN, 'Global Agribusiness: two decades of plunder', in: Seedling, July 2010.
[5] see: Eurostat. From farm to fork - a statistical journey along the EU's food chain - Issue number 27/2011 http://tinyurl.com/656tchm and http://tinyurl.com/6k9jsc3
[6] FAO. Stephen Karekezi and Michael Lazarus, Future energy requirements for Africa’s agriculture. Chapters 2, 3, and 4. http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9766E/v9766e00.htm#Contents
[7] For EU, see: Viktoria BOLLA, Velina PENDOLOVSKA, Driving forces behind EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions over the decade 1999-2008. Statistics in focus 10/2011. http://tinyurl.com/6bhesog
[8] Tara Garnett and Tim Jackson, Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of SurreyFrost Bitten: an exploration of refrigeration dependence in the UK food chain and its implications for climate policywww.fcrn.org.uk/frcnPubs/publications/PDFs/Frostbitten%20paper.pdf
[9] S.A. Tassou, Y. Ge, A. Hadawey, D. Marriott. Energy consumption and conservation in food retailing. Applied Thermal Engineering 31 (2011) 147-156 AND Kumar Venkat. CleanMetrics Corp. The Climate Change Impact of US Food Waste
CleanMetrics Technical Brief. www.cleanmetrics.com/pages/ClimateChangeImpactofUSFoodWaste.pdf and Ioannis Bakas, Copenhagen Resource Institute (CRI). Food and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/KU_Food_GHG_emissions.pdf
[10] Tristram Stuart, “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal”, Penguin, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/m3dxc9
[11] Jean Bogner, et. al. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the IPCC. Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation) http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/26/1/11.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
[12] Figures used for calculations were:
a) an average loss of 4,5- 6 kg of SOM/m2 of arable land and 2-3 kg of SOM/m2 of agricultural land under prairies and not cultivated
b) an average soil depth of 30 cm, with an average soil density of 1 gr/cm3
c) 5000 million ha of agricultural land worldwide; 1800 million ha of arable land, as stated by FAO
d) a ratio of 1,46 kg of CO2 for each kg of destroyed SOM
[13] See: 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009. http://www.grain.org/e/735
[14] The conclusion is based on the assumption that organic matter incorporation would reach an annual global average rate of 3.5 to 5 tonnes per hectare of agricultural land. For more detailed calculations, see: GRAIN, 'Earth matters: tackling the climate crisis from the ground up'. In: Seedling October 2009, table 2.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Friday, September 9, 2011
What if Solar Energy Received The Same Subsidies as Fossil Fuels?
I copied this directly from Roger Ebert's Journal on the Sun Times website. All credit goes to him and his sources, but I could not resist sharing this.
It's just that good:
It's just that good:
What if solar energy received the same subsidies as fossil fuels?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
A Bright Future for the Heartland
All too often I find myself posting about the negative side of an issue, so here's a positive spin:
A Bright Future for the Heartland
Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy
From the manufacturing centers and corn and soybean fields to the major finance hubs and leading research universities, Midwest states have long served as an economic engine for the United States.
Yet the region is still struggling to fully recover from a recession that has made it difficult for families to pay bills and for businesses to prosper and sustain job growth.
The region’s unsustainable energy system exacerbates these economic pressures.
The Midwest power system is dominated by coal—largely imported from outside the region—which poses serious risks to public health and the environment, and leaves consumers vulnerable to volatile energy prices.
With abundant resources, revitalization is possible.
The good news is that practical and affordable ways are available to help revitalize the Midwest economy and ensure a clean, safe, and reliable power supply.
The Midwest is home to some of the best renewable energy resources in the world.
The region is also endowed with a strong industrial base and leading research universities, where a tradition of hard work and innovation has long made the Midwest an economic engine for the entire nation.
Few areas of the world have this ideal mix of resources, industrial capacity, and knowledge base.
These advantages give the Midwest the tools to turn the challenges of a stalled economy and an unsustainable, polluting energy system into an opportunity for economic prosperity, job growth, and a healthy environment.
UCS’s new report, A Bright Future for the Heartland, shows how we can get there.
Clean energy: a wise investment for a bright future.
Energy efficiency technologies and renewable electricity resources, such as wind, bioenergy, and solar energy, offer a cost-effective and responsible path away from polluting fossil fuels toward an innovation-based twenty-first-century economy.
Investing in these solutions would deliver new jobs and other economic development benefits, save consumers money, diversify the region's energy mix, and cut heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming.
Boosting investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency would also help keep the Midwest competitive in the growing global clean energy industry.
A roadmap for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In A Bright Future for the Heartland, UCS based its analysis on the renewable energy and energy efficiency goals of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA)—a collaboration of 10 states working on key public policy issues.
These goals call for producing 30 percent of the Midwest's electricity supply from renewable energy by 2030, and for investing in energy efficiency technologies to reduce growth in power consumption at least 2 percent annually by 2015 and thereafter.
Two key solutions: renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards.
In 2009 an MGA advisory group released the Midwestern Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Roadmap (or Energy Roadmap), a set of policy recommendations for transitioning to a clean energy economy (MGA 2009).
Our analysis focuses on two of the highest-priority recommendations in the Energy Roadmap, which we model as a renewable electricity standard (RES) and an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS). Our report shares what would happen if the entire Midwest region enacted the standards.
An RES is a flexible, market-based policy that requires electricity providers to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy used to produce the power they supply.
An EERS similarly requires utilities to meet specific annual targets for reducing the use of electricity.
While the region will need other policies to overcome specific market barriers to clean energy, the RES and EERS have proven to be effective and popular tools for advancing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and can play a key role in ensuring that the Midwest meets the targets in the Energy Roadmap.
A bright future, together.
Midwest states can benefit from enacting these policies individually, but will benefit even more by acting together.
Many Midwest states have already taken important steps to promote clean energy, and there must be no retrenchment in those efforts.
Instead, each state can go further to strengthen or enact policies that at least match the Energy Roadmap’s clean energy targets, and to support local, regional, federal, and international efforts to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cuts in carbon emissions.
With each state doing its part to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, the region will reap many vital benefits today while building a clean and sustainable energy economy for future generations.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE -- WITH SOME GREAT SIDEBARS -- HERE]
Saturday, July 9, 2011
It's Time To Shut Up And Do Something
Our garden is about two months behind last year, which was a horrible growing season. Yesterday I was able to hang the laundry outside for the first time this year -- that's about two months behind the norm. It's not just the Puget Sound. While in Nebraska, every time I commented on how beautiful it was (it really is) I was told how wet and cold it had been and generations of folks would say, "It's never this green this time of year".
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
There are tornadoes in Arizona, the Missouri River is experiencing record flooding, and the entire state of Texas has been declared a disaster area due to drought and wildfires. Oceans are rising. It seems pretty obvious that Ma Nature is not cooperating with human "business as usual".
People in Canada and Australia are concerned about what we need to do about it. It was only a few years ago that the majority of Americans believed that climate change was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Then two things happened: the economy took a dive and a democrat was elected President. This is important because climatologists still insist that we need to address the causes of climate change immediately, if it's not already too late. But a handful of people have decided to use the issue to further polarize political parties and now the number of climate change deniers is going up.
This is insane and I don't understand the reasoning.
Okay, so a few strange weather occurrences does not necessarily mean anything. I get that and if that's what we were talking about, that'd be one thing. But we aren't. We're talking about a growing body of evidence and a majority of scientists who agree that climate change is happening and we are responsible.
"We can't afford to do anything about it right now". The economy is in the toilet, sure, but who is going to be glad we focused on that when millions of people start getting displaced, we can't grow food, and drinking water is scarce? It's as if people don't understand we are talking about losing our basic necessities: food and shelter. We are talking about a world that can not longer sustain not just us, but the plants and animals that we rely on. I really want my 401k to take care of me when I retire, but if it's a choice between that or food, I'll find a way to make ends meet.
I read somewhere someone called climate change a hoax and suggested that it was some kind of liberal plot to make people spend money. First of all, if you want plots, turn to the advertising companies. Marketers have gotten us all to spend so much money on crap -- much of which is bad for us -- I can't understand where anyone has the energy to spend on a conspiracy theory around climate change. Second, these are the same people bitching about the economy. Guess what? Investing in new energy sources CREATES JOBS. We should be creating new jobs in solar, wind, and hydro manufacturing and installation and putting people back to work! Why is anybody against these new jobs?
If we really buckle down and try to deal with this problem the worst case scenario is this: the economy gets a shot in the arm with new jobs, we create cleaner energy, the air and water are cleaner, we all become a little more responsible, our children have better lives, and it was all for nothing -- either it really is too late and we can't change it, or it was all just a myth.
Here's the other worst case scenario: droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising sea levels displace the majority of the world's population over the next decades, our agriculture and natural resources are wiped out, and you, me, and our children become part of the sharpest population decline in human history.
Do we have our priorities straight?
Further reading:
http://www.thesomervillenews.com/archives/16495
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/jul/08/lets-change-our-ways-before-its-too-late/
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/pb4book.pdf
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Charging Stations
In the course of rearranging and reorganizing over the past couple days, one thing we needed to deal with was our charging stations. These are areas we've designated for charging our phones, game controllers, laptops, etc. (I know, I know, people think I want to drag humanity backwards two-hundred years. The truth is, I just want to take the real wisdom and truth from the past and apply it to the wisdom and truth of the present. I'm all for technology, innovation, and efficiency, just not at the expense of ourselves or Ma Nature. But I digress...) We have tried to set up convenient locations to charge things without having vampire power constantly running up our bill.
We have a HYmini with four small solar chargers (the solar chargers our ours, the HYmini is actually borrowed, but that's a whole other story). We can charge our phones and anything else that has a USB power connector. That sits in one of the south-facing windows in the living room and usually works great for one phone at a time.
For game controllers and/or two or more phones, we have a single power strip (with a surge protector) with all the various chargers plugged into it. The catch is, you have to remember to turn the power strip on when you want to charge something (not too difficult) and then remember to turn it off when you're done (a lot more difficult, it turns out).
While reorganizing I was faced with the question of what to do with a one-foot tall, light-up Las Vegas sign. The sign is plastic and a little tacky -- it lights up just like the real thing -- but my wife and I got married in Vegas and this was a wedding present from some dear friends who were there for the celebration. Be it what it may, it will always possess a place in our hearts and our living space.
How do we remember to turn off the power strip when stuff is done charging?
...and where should we display the Vegas/wedding sign?
*BLAM*
Two questions solve themselves. I set the Vegas sign up on the charging station power strip so that it lights up and flashes whenever the power strip is on. Testing so far has proved the solution to be solid. Don't get me wrong -- the Vegas sign holds sentimental value that continues to make it a part of our lives. It just happens to also make a great visual cue that can't be missed.
Re-wiring the office / music room / studio will be a whole other story...
We have a HYmini with four small solar chargers (the solar chargers our ours, the HYmini is actually borrowed, but that's a whole other story). We can charge our phones and anything else that has a USB power connector. That sits in one of the south-facing windows in the living room and usually works great for one phone at a time.
For game controllers and/or two or more phones, we have a single power strip (with a surge protector) with all the various chargers plugged into it. The catch is, you have to remember to turn the power strip on when you want to charge something (not too difficult) and then remember to turn it off when you're done (a lot more difficult, it turns out).
While reorganizing I was faced with the question of what to do with a one-foot tall, light-up Las Vegas sign. The sign is plastic and a little tacky -- it lights up just like the real thing -- but my wife and I got married in Vegas and this was a wedding present from some dear friends who were there for the celebration. Be it what it may, it will always possess a place in our hearts and our living space.
How do we remember to turn off the power strip when stuff is done charging?
...and where should we display the Vegas/wedding sign?
*BLAM*
Two questions solve themselves. I set the Vegas sign up on the charging station power strip so that it lights up and flashes whenever the power strip is on. Testing so far has proved the solution to be solid. Don't get me wrong -- the Vegas sign holds sentimental value that continues to make it a part of our lives. It just happens to also make a great visual cue that can't be missed.
Re-wiring the office / music room / studio will be a whole other story...
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy to Stall Projects
I can't say this surprises me in the least. Here's the whole story in a nut:
"The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land..."
“...'opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics' to 'financially cripple' projects..."
"While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years."
The article doesn't name the "opponents" of wind and solar, but it seems a pretty safe bet big oil has a hand in it. Whoever the opponents are, this is further evidence that the government is subservient to big business. Since big business is only responsible for shareholder profits and not the health of people, the planet, or future generations, this is a very dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves.
June 1, 2011, 5:03 p.m. EDT
Permits, uncertainty obstruct wind, solar energy
By Eric Skalac of Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land, a shockingly low number that needs to be fixed fast, members of a House committee said Wednesday
The culprit, according to many of the wind and solar industry officials testifying at the Natural Resources Committee hearing, is a bureaucratic process that can be used by project opponents to stall plans until they become economically unfeasible.
“I’m shocked at the constant problem of permitting and uncertainty,” said Rep. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana.
James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, LLC, detailed the permitting process during his experience with what could become the nation’s first offshore wind generation project, which has been in development for the last 11 years.
With no legal requirement for the duration of a permit review period, “opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics” to “financially cripple” projects that may meet the necessary standards, he said. “One small group can tie you up in knots for many years,” Gordon said, referring to a special interest group that he said “has sought to delay the [permit] review process at every turn.”
The Natural Resources Committee has been trying to identify roadblocks to wind and solar energy projects. At its first hearing on May 13, the committee asked the directors of the Bureau for Land Management and the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to explain the alleged permitting delays. The officials said they were working to eliminate redundant steps.
The wind energy industry alone employs about 75,000 people in the U.S., and the generating capacity has grown annually by 35% over the past five years, “second only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined,” said American Wind Energy Association spokesman Roby Roberts in a prepared statement. But despite industry growth, the witnesses agreed that the major roadblocks of policy uncertainty and a lengthy permitting process remain.
While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years.
In addition, a grant program in the 2009 stimulus law provided $7 billion to be awarded to 2,601 renewable energy projects so far, “leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment,” according to Stanford University energy expert Dan Reicher. But if projects have not started construction by the end of this year, they will lose the money.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
I am reminded of our own Declaration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Something needs to change.
"The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land..."
“...'opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics' to 'financially cripple' projects..."
"While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years."
The article doesn't name the "opponents" of wind and solar, but it seems a pretty safe bet big oil has a hand in it. Whoever the opponents are, this is further evidence that the government is subservient to big business. Since big business is only responsible for shareholder profits and not the health of people, the planet, or future generations, this is a very dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves.
June 1, 2011, 5:03 p.m. EDT
Permits, uncertainty obstruct wind, solar energy
By Eric Skalac of Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land, a shockingly low number that needs to be fixed fast, members of a House committee said Wednesday
The culprit, according to many of the wind and solar industry officials testifying at the Natural Resources Committee hearing, is a bureaucratic process that can be used by project opponents to stall plans until they become economically unfeasible.
“I’m shocked at the constant problem of permitting and uncertainty,” said Rep. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana.
James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, LLC, detailed the permitting process during his experience with what could become the nation’s first offshore wind generation project, which has been in development for the last 11 years.
With no legal requirement for the duration of a permit review period, “opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics” to “financially cripple” projects that may meet the necessary standards, he said. “One small group can tie you up in knots for many years,” Gordon said, referring to a special interest group that he said “has sought to delay the [permit] review process at every turn.”
The Natural Resources Committee has been trying to identify roadblocks to wind and solar energy projects. At its first hearing on May 13, the committee asked the directors of the Bureau for Land Management and the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to explain the alleged permitting delays. The officials said they were working to eliminate redundant steps.
The wind energy industry alone employs about 75,000 people in the U.S., and the generating capacity has grown annually by 35% over the past five years, “second only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined,” said American Wind Energy Association spokesman Roby Roberts in a prepared statement. But despite industry growth, the witnesses agreed that the major roadblocks of policy uncertainty and a lengthy permitting process remain.
While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years.
In addition, a grant program in the 2009 stimulus law provided $7 billion to be awarded to 2,601 renewable energy projects so far, “leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment,” according to Stanford University energy expert Dan Reicher. But if projects have not started construction by the end of this year, they will lose the money.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
I am reminded of our own Declaration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Something needs to change.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harbinger
Seriously? The U.S. Senate needed sixty votes to proceed with a bill to reduce the deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes and there were 48 Senators willing to vote against it?!? We are fighting two foreign wars, global climate change, an economic crisis, and we desperately need to curb the American appetite for petrol, but 48 U.S. Senators wanted to be sure big oil companies don't have to pay their fair share?!?
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
| Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 940; A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes | ||
05/17/2011 Senate Roll Call No. 72 112nd Congress, 1st Session Rejected: 52-48 (see complete tally) | ||
| By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 72), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. | ||
| Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 72 |
| 52 |
| ||
| 48 |
|
|  |
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
Monday, May 16, 2011
Obama's Energy Plan for Dummies
Here's the "plan" from whitehouse.gov in jpg form. I really don't mean to criticize...
BUT...
when faced with the question of tipping the balance not for a better life for our children...
or even a life as good...
but just for their survival...
What happened to,
"Yes we can"
?
BUT...
when faced with the question of tipping the balance not for a better life for our children...
or even a life as good...
but just for their survival...
What happened to,
"Yes we can"
?
Monday, May 9, 2011
Lester Brown, Plan B 4.0
I read Lester Brown's book, Plan B 3.0 about two years ago (as I mentioned in Backstory Part III). It's a difficult book to get through because you have to plow through a lot of doom and gloom (about two thirds of the book) before getting to any sign of hope. Brown does offer solutions to the problems, but the book is a lot of explaining exactly the what, where, why, and how of all of these global issues.
While I wholly recommend the new book, I found this video series on You Tube that is a pretty good primer. It was recorded at the University of Chicago on November 17, 2009. This is the sort of thing that should be viral and yet part one only has 112 views, part five has less than 50 views.
If you haven't read the book or are not familiar with Lester Brown's work, I encourage you to take the time to look at this series:
While I wholly recommend the new book, I found this video series on You Tube that is a pretty good primer. It was recorded at the University of Chicago on November 17, 2009. This is the sort of thing that should be viral and yet part one only has 112 views, part five has less than 50 views.
If you haven't read the book or are not familiar with Lester Brown's work, I encourage you to take the time to look at this series:
Monday, April 11, 2011
My Letter to President Obama
Mr. President (and administration),
Twelve days ago I received an email with the subject line of Gas Prices that told of your goal to reduce oil imports. I missed the deadline for the Advise the Advisor feedback, but I wanted to share this with you.
It seems clear to me that we have focused too much on consolidation of resources and activities with catastrophic results like "too big to fail". It seems to me business models need to look more like the internet, which is lots of small computers connected to a large network. With businesses growing larger and larger and becoming more and more consolidated, we are creating more and bigger problems.
Two examples of this are directly connected to this energy policy.
1) Solar farms. Why do we feel we must create large solar farms that take up real estate? The sun shines in different areas at different times and we currently have networks of buildings already connected to the power grid all across the country.
Why don't we let the people build new jobs in solar energy and a new "solar internet" of power by creating incentives to make solar affordable to individuals, families, and businesses in the current market and make requirements for new construction to include solar collection? This would reduce power consumption and feed any extra solar power back into the grid.
2) Agriculture. Right now our industrial model of agriculture uses an unbelievable amount of energy that goes into growing, fertilizing, pesticides, packaging, processing, storing, and distribution from a small number of industrial sources to all over the world. This practice is both unsustainable and unsafe (how many eggs had to be recalled last August?). Concentrated agriculture has proven to be an environmental hazard as well.
Why do we not encourage networks of smaller and more diverse farms that are not a burden on nature, closer to the people they feed, and thereby more sustainable? This model can drastically reduce agricultural energy dependence.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Twelve days ago I received an email with the subject line of Gas Prices that told of your goal to reduce oil imports. I missed the deadline for the Advise the Advisor feedback, but I wanted to share this with you.
It seems clear to me that we have focused too much on consolidation of resources and activities with catastrophic results like "too big to fail". It seems to me business models need to look more like the internet, which is lots of small computers connected to a large network. With businesses growing larger and larger and becoming more and more consolidated, we are creating more and bigger problems.
Two examples of this are directly connected to this energy policy.
1) Solar farms. Why do we feel we must create large solar farms that take up real estate? The sun shines in different areas at different times and we currently have networks of buildings already connected to the power grid all across the country.
Why don't we let the people build new jobs in solar energy and a new "solar internet" of power by creating incentives to make solar affordable to individuals, families, and businesses in the current market and make requirements for new construction to include solar collection? This would reduce power consumption and feed any extra solar power back into the grid.
2) Agriculture. Right now our industrial model of agriculture uses an unbelievable amount of energy that goes into growing, fertilizing, pesticides, packaging, processing, storing, and distribution from a small number of industrial sources to all over the world. This practice is both unsustainable and unsafe (how many eggs had to be recalled last August?). Concentrated agriculture has proven to be an environmental hazard as well.
Why do we not encourage networks of smaller and more diverse farms that are not a burden on nature, closer to the people they feed, and thereby more sustainable? This model can drastically reduce agricultural energy dependence.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)