Group items tagged

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child coal issues such as mountaintop removal, but let's not get complacent about the larger coal market: this article talks about the role China will play as a huge source of consumption.  What to do?

I'm not going to lie, I didn't see this coming. I'm sure many analysts did -- the U.S. makes tighter coal related regulations, but there is still tons of coal under the ground to be mined. Consequently, it should only make sense to the king of market economy countries that we would export the resource we can't use to a country that can. For all members of groups that have been working against coal domestically, this represents one of the biggest losses they can imagine. After making strides on regulation, one person quoted in this article said that it was one step forward (at home), but ten back (for the world). I've at least operated under the idea that if we can make coal unpalatable enough, we would stop burning it. We're working towards that, as is Europe. But the fact remains that there are "jobs" to be had mining, money to be made exporting, and so the story goes. And even if the U.S. were to regulate coal exports (which is something the free trade maniacs of the new Congress will never, ever let happen), China would turn to Australia, or Canada, or Brazil. This dilemma is crying out for a comprehensive strategy of global cooperation on climate change. But, as is most likely the case, Cancun will slide by, no new agreements will come out of it, and this new coal challenge will become just another part of the mired story of the inability of the world to stop burning all that it is burning. One of those rare and terrifying articles that asks serious questions about how we are to subvert a framework that encourages coal burning and other major externalities.

For those who attended the recent presentation at LC by the beehive collective, or for those who weren't able to make it, here's some followup information on their coal mural. Check out the "Narrative Book" link at the bottom of the page for an in-depth description of the stories in the picture. Here's more about the group in general: http://www.beehivecollective.org/english/aboutus.htm

And lastly (for now), just to stir things up a bit, check out this piece on Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This piece certainly raises interesting questions and offers unexpected claims. For example, in the Environmental Gains section it says, "Instead of recycling office paper, Gaines says, it should be used to generate energy in coal-fired power plants. 'Then you burn less coal and displace some of the coal emissions. Paper is a really good, clean fuel,' she says." I'd caution against jumping too quickly on the "rethinking" bandwagon, though, especially considering the fact that this claim is followed by, "But Dennison argues that Gaines' analysis glosses over an important factor. 'The wood has to be harvested from a forest and the forest has to be managed to produce the wood. And that set of management practices has important environmental consequences with regard to biodiversity, habitat, and so forth, that have to be counted...' " ... DUH. If this is where the debate is, I'm not convinced that these ideas have been fully flushed out yet. It's certainly important to challenge our dogmatic practices, but we also must make sure we've got our arguments all straightened out before we run with them. This is a place to start, at least. (There are, also, a number of other interesting points in this article, not all of which are so obviously undeveloped. I do recommend this piece if I've succeeded in interesting you with questions about "waste")

Recently, a politician who may take a role in our energy committe made comments against the clean air act because it shut down coal mines in the United States that couldn't meet its standards. Demand for coal on a global scale still exists, however, and now China has pollution akin to that in our industrial era. When the U.S. makes laws that help make economic actions "fair", "green", "safe", or otherwise it makes the market function better according to our values. But when other nations don't have those same regulations, business moves out, and we ship things like our waste and pollution to the third world. This video highlights a means of solving that problem. While the speaker addresses common concerns, I'm not convinced. I think he's pretty optimistic all around. How does one convince nations operating for their own good to impose limitations on themselves that might slow their growth? Easy for us to sacrifice some growth for environmental health, but a higher standard of material living matters more in impoverished areas - the conception is that taking care of environmental issues, or social issues, is a luxury derived from wealth. I really don't see a solution yet - I like what the speaker is doing, but I'm skeptical about its reliability. The store price of a good remains, I think, most people's measure of a succesful buy. Is a culture shift required to change that? More information? I'd certainly start with the latter, for the sake of doing something...

For those who aren't convinced that action at the individual level is the best focus of our energy and/or activism: "Management and recycling of industrial products and materials are key priority areas. While typically not seen by the general public or part of most of our daily lives, these wastes are often generated in large volumes. Learn about EPA initiatives, such as the Coal Combustion Partnership Program, and the recycling and beneficial use of industrial byproducts generated during manufacturing processes.

Interesting thoughts on environmentalism taking place in Orion magazine these days...see essay, online comments, and audio discussion.

I read this the other week. I don't know if I liked it or not though. I remember that he critiqued environmentalism for putting up wind farms instead of coal plants, though they are still destroying natural beauty. And he almost fetishized "the good old days" when people (read: hippies) used to get together and occupy a place with songs and community. I understand why one could be frustrated, but I think it's also important to realize that it will be a gradual change toward environmentalism, we can't all just run to the hills with our guitars to sit around the campfire to protest a six lane motorway. But y'know, we're ENVS majors, so let's just find a way for both narratives to coexist and play off of each other, perhaps they're both integral parts of checks and balances within the environmentalist movement.

Also known as Mountain Top Removal, this is an emerging environmental concern out there. According to http://www.ilovemountains.org/science/ this scientific study 'confirms what coalfield residents have been saying for years: mountaintop removal's impacts are "pervasive and irreversible," "attempts to regulate [mountaintop removal] practices are inadequate," and that "regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science." '

The EPA has unveiled new, more stringent standards for coal-burning power plants. Their main argument for the regulations is for health purposes, not to penalize the industry. However, manufacturers argue that "stringent, unrealistic regulations such as these will curb the recent economic growth we have seen," and create job loss and plant closures.

This is straight out of the matrix - you know how the whole AI system runs of humans producing energy like batteries? These guys are seriously looking at doing just that. This story comes from GlobalPost, a new site that has great international reporting (when a lot of big papers had to fire their journalists as the industry started to decline, GP picked a lot of their international folks up as freelancers, so they developed a good set of connections around the world fast). They're doing a series on power and energy around the world, "Powerland", which this is a part of. Very cool news organization. In a new twist in the progress of the global energy system, Japan is now looking to reduce its energy dependence on Nuclear Power (a source so many other places are looking to for reducing their energy dependence on oil, coal, etc...) So the company featured in this video comes in with an interesting mix of waste diversion/energy production at the same time. The little, marginal bits of energy thrown about when ever anyone does anything - taking a step, talking on a phone, sitting down and chilling - is harnessed to power things in its surroundings. It is sort of like using exercise equipments rotations to generate energy, which some colleges have gotten major press for. I know the military was also looking at putting something in the soles of boots that would create energy when compressed, so that marching or walking could actually power some of a soldier's personal electronics. There are no numbers to see how scalable this is, but looking at the energy margins is interesting. They do add up - one step is nothing, but if you're in Tokyo and there are millions of collected steps all the time, that is a lot of energy-producing floor vibration. One has to wonder as to how serious an alternative this sort of technology is to other types. Almost like being able to paint solar panels onto things, and just take advantage of wherever the sun hits. Its almost desperate, b

For a different thing to pay attention to, listen to the street activist (I think - not clear what the source is) message at the very beginning of the video. Interesting the stance Japan seems to be taking, at least within some parts of its culture, in response to the Fukushima incident.

I noticed that the Powerland series on GP is being sponsored by Shell, which raises some interesting questions. Multinational energy corporations may be turning to energy alternatives because they know that oil is going down the proverbial drain. Paying attention to where companies like Shell, BP, and Chevron-Texaco might yield some worthwhile information about our energy future.

An NYT article highlighting Vaclav Smil's outlook on energy. We have read a few Smil articles in ENVS 160 about population and peak oil, in which he expresses the same ideas in this article. Smil does not oppose new energy alternatives, however he believes oil and coal are still necessary; we just need to be more efficient.

The above article is the Break Through Institute's semi-recent report on the Jevons' Paradox, which I posted additional links to here and debated in class. For the record, the report is favorable. Also for the record, I have not read it completely, and am not laying down final judgment. However: I promised Jim I would respond to this at some point. I still hope to. In the meantime, this is worth musing over (if the link doesn't work, I have the PDF). https://files.me.com/jgkoomey/0aqqfm I really appreciate Break Through and the dismantling of environmentalism's sacred cows, but I'm concerned about this one. Many of their other critiques and analysis seem to have the empirical evidence, but I have yet to be convinced by what I've seen here. Obviously it is a long report, and I have not gotten to read through it entirely, but so far I remain unconvinced. I think they're thinking about the problem in the right way (the economy is a complex social, political, and economic system, it does defy basic models and equations, and if the emergence idea continues to hold up it is a right environment for them) and I really enjoy reading their analysis, but I remain unconvinced by the numbers. Our economy is not composed in such a way that energy is a primary limiting factor to production, which would surely deaden the effect, among other theoretical threats to the idea on both a micro and macro scale. Politically, efficiency measures will continue to allow solar energy and other alternative competitors to carry more weight than they do now, allowing us to free ourselves from the need for energy intense liquids or solids like coal, gas, and oil in favor of less "compact" energy sources. Break Through Institute offers some excellent political analysis, and their efforts at getting outside and away from the usual political roadblocks and antics are appreciated. But I wonder if they

Obviously, its not my expertise either, and I'm woefully ignorant in all this ultimately. But their credentials don't seem to be in deep energy analysis and research, and one academic report where I do find Jesse Jenkins (of BTI, who helped write that report and is an energy expert) still encouraged energy efficiency measures (http://www.brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0209_energy_innovation_muro/0209_energy_innovation_muro_full.pdf). I'm not bold enough to lay down final judgment, but I'm going to need a lot more convincing. BTI makes a lot of convincing arguments that I really like - so far, this hasn't been one of them. But like I said, I'm still reading. And trying to get a handle on what Shellenberger, Nordhaus, and Jenkins have under their belts in terms of economic, versus political (when the two are even seperable), analysis. If there is other stuff worth reading in that regard, I'd love to get my hands on it.