I told you so

An excerpt from my personal journal, in response to...well... everything:

October 7, 2008

Grab a bag of popcorn boys and girls, and watch the world unravel. Ready or not, here we go. Life happens. Once. Maybe. There’s no speeding up or slowing down. There are no do-overs, or command-z’s, or white out on the computer screen. LIFE HAPPENS. And what happens, is up to you. Mmmmm… to a point. I suppose the rest of the world has a bit of a say in what happens to you as well. We are all, after all, connected. Sewn together by infinite strands of the human condition, pulled taught by globalization, and put on display by planet earth’s environmental framework. So maybe what happens isn’t entirely up to you, but what you make of it certainly is – entirely – up – to – you.

I can’t help but think that the current downfall of the world’s economic markets is a giant “I told you so” from the universal intelligence source. I admit to being hugely undereducated on this subject, but perhaps – this is a form of justice being served. And I have to say, the chaos is amusing. I keep re-running the closing scene from Fight Club over in my head. Two crazies holding hands and watching skyscrapers collapse around them. A beautiful demise. A happy ending.

Lecture Notes: Mickey Glantz - Our War with Nature

Mickey Glantz - Consortium for Capacity Buildings at INSTAAR

Lecture date: Nov 11, 2008

The global soup - we are all an essential ingredient

Early warning systems - more important than governments realize. In times without crisis, there is always pressure to take away money. This does not make sense.

"Time, the tide, and global warming wait for no one." The challenge of creeping environmental problems.

Impacts research has become the new frontier of global warming investigation. Is this the best thing on which to focus our efforts?

Human modification of climate an ancient practice. What will the future look like? Geo-engineering schemes to control climate change: solution? or a whole new type of disaster?

• Towing icebergs to Africa!
• Thermal mountains!
• Damning the Mediterranean Sea!
• Aerosol injections into the stratosphere!

So many exclaim: "Technology is the answer!" But what was the question??

Modeling the climate system without people: wrong! We live in the Anthropocene - we are the new era of the earth!

Nature and society interactions: humans dominate nature, humans subordinate to nature, humans in harmony with nature. How do we achieve harmony?

Commoner's 4 laws of ecology (applied to climate):

1. Everything is connected to everything else
2. There is no such place as "away"
3. Everything is always changing
4. There is no such thing as a free lunch

Ecosystem goods and services for human well being vs. human goods and services for ecosystem well being... hmmm

We need nature, nature does not need us!

Renewable Energies Now!

In response to American Solar Energy Society online article, U.S. Energy Experts Announce Way to Freeze Global Warming

This article briefly described the efforts of leading scientists and policy makers (including Chuck Kustcher, who was a panel member on the discussion about whether a manhattan/apollo type project is necessary to solve the energy/climate problem) in compiling the Climate Change in the U.S.: Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030 report. 

The report illustrates how energy efficiency measures could keep U.S. carbon emissions roughly constant over the next 23 years as the economy grows, and how renewable energy technologies could make deep cuts below today’s emissions. Wind energy provides about 35% of the renewable energy contribution, while the rest is divided about evenly among the other technologies. “Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can begin to be deployed on a large scale today to help save us from the worst consequences of global warming,” said Kutscher. “With continued R&D to lower costs and a reasonable level of policy support, they have the potential to meet most, if not all, of the carbon reductions that will be required in the future.”

With increasing scientific evidence showing the potential for "behavior solutions" to address climate change problems, I find it all the more important that we focus our efforts on finding ways to generate opportunities for collective action. This will come with better development of alternative sources of energy, more environmentally friendly products and packaging, and much-needed revisions of the industrial process itself. Even the experts are agreeing, the time is now, and people are the answer.

Lecture Notes: Patty Limerick - History of Water in the West

Patty Limerick - Center of the American West

Big questions about Western Water:

1. How did we end up in a region with the lowest precipitation and the highest per capita water use?
2. What now? The policy questions. Do you move the water to where the people are?
3. Do we have a willing consensus, legal authority to modify political and material infrastructure?

Areas with the least amount of precipitation and most evapotranspirition, have the highest percapita water use in the US. Why? The climate demands more water use. The definition of "normal" applied to a landscape (we are applying eastern and midwestern perceptions of normal to the western landscape). Shouldn't the "green" movement be the "tan" or "olive green" movement in the west? The idea of green is actually a disturbance model.

Do we say "oops" and install mechanisms to route water for agriculture? How do we adapt to 150 years of existing, failing, public policy?

Leaders of the exploring parties in the west (Zebulon Pike and Stephen Long) predicted that the lack of water in the west would limit growth in the area, that the western climate would be a barrier to prevent too great an extension for our population. Pike even wrote "nature has solved the problem for us."

Engineering profession has bought us nearly 200 years in facing the problem between water shortage and development.

Hydraulic mining further exacerbates the problem.

Damns as a means of conservation? Has our definition of conservation changed? Can revenue from hydroelectric power be used for water issues?

Over-allocation and huge uncertainty in flow amounts present large barriers to re-writing water law.

Where do we draw the line? When do we FORCE policy makers to re-examine policies that are potentially worsening an already critical environmental problem?

Better understanding environmental policies

One of the most critical components of the "sustainable development and human behavior discussion" is that of collective action. How do we generate large-scale changes in human behavior to address environmental issues? What are our tools, and who do we seek for leadership? What is the role of government in these issues? Over this semester, I have come to better understand some of the political instruments that exist to address environmental problems, and the possible applications of these tools. These questions become particularly important in the midst of an increasingly complicated economic situation and administration change.

Most environmental policies can be categorized as market-based or command and control.

Market-based policies use monetary programs as incentives or disincentives to change behavior or emission levels. Examples of these include pollution charges, environmental subsidies, deposits and refunds, and pollution permit trading systems. Market-based instruments can be very cost efficient for governing bodies, and can usually be implemented in a relative short period of time, making them optimal short-term policy solutions. They maintain some degree of consumer freedom, thought the primary criticism of market-based instruments is that they present disproportionate burdens on citizens of lower socio-economic brackets. 

Command and control (CAC) policies are rules or standards that are determined by governments and enforced usually by some sort of fine or punishment. However, other forms of command and control instruments can take the shape of research and development, or investment in systems or infrastructure. With CAC instruments, government is involved with nearly every aspect of the policy design, implementation and monitoring. While this might seem like an optimum strategy to enforce behavior change, it can place too much power or responsibility in the hands of governing bodies. 

For both of these policy types is it crucial to evaluate and redesign on a regular basis. Below is a list of common criteria that can be used to evaluate environmental policies:

• Equity/fairness - does the policy discriminate against certain groups?
• Government knowledge of optimal standards
• Cost effectiveness - what are the transaction costs, including start-up costs?
• Measurability - how do we asses whether the policies are working or not
• Political feasibility - how appropriate or reasonable are the proposed policies?

Lecture Notes: CIRES Panel Discussion on Energy/Climate Problem

Do We Need a Manhattan/Apollo Project to Solve the Energy/Climate Problem?

A panel discussion with Rad Byerly, CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy Research; Craig Cox, Interwest Energy Alliance; Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment; Chuck Kutscher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Gregory Nemet, La Follette School of Public A airs and Nelson Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Moderator: Paul Komor, CU Renewable and Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Paul Komor opened the discussion with a brief overview of three of the most significant aspects of the climate and energy challenge. His points as follows:
1. The challenge is enormous. In the U.S., a 50-85% reduction in CO2 output is needed by 2050.
2. Energy is the primary culprit (larger than waste, methane, etc). More than 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is energy-related CO2.
3. There are sharp disagreements over what is more important: new energy technologies (research and development), or better use of what we already have (Deployment and efficiency of existing technologies).

The panelists unanimously agreed that in order to address the current global energy and climate problem, it is imperative that the U.S. allocates a significant amount of human and financial capital to the issue. They were also careful to point out that the Manhattan and Apollo projects culminated in a finite number of products/events. The climate problem operates on entirely different scales of time and outcomes, in that it is a global problem with an infinite time frame.

Greg Nemet spoke strongly about the need for better deployment of existing technologies. He immediately pointed to the connection between government guidance and citizen involvement. He argued that deployment comes from adoption decisions, and that the general public is dependent on government to provide incentives to make adoption decisions. He pointed out that ‘new technologies’ such as fuel cells, are not actually new, they are just underutilized and not yet available to the market. Greg made a convincing argument that instead of going in search of new technologies that may or may not be more effective than the technologies we have today, research and development should instead be focused on making existing technologies accessible to everyone.

Pete Geddes took a different approach to the problem, and called for the need of increased support of human innovation. He argued that the path to technology innovation and breakthroughs is something that the government does not do well. He used FEMA and TSA as examples of dysfunctional government bodies that failed to address serious issues. Pete gave strong support for the market’s ability to blossom new, or new forms of energy technologies. He called the market “a discovery process… capable of capturing diffused information.” Information that Pete believes will lead to effective energy solutions.

Chuck Kutscher showed a few fascinating slides during his discussion. One slide in particular illustrated above, shows the potential U.S. carbon reductions in 2030 from energy efficiency and renewable technologies and paths to achieve reductions of 60% and 80% below today’s emissions value by 2050.

What strikes me about the figure is the dominance of the dark blue energy efficiency section. Chuck then attached a few numbers to figure. He quoted the combined cost of research and development into renewable energy technologies would total approximately $26 billion per year. He then quoted the cost savings of 100% citizen energy efficiency (behavior changes as well as use of current technologies) at $-108 billion per year. To see the extent to which changes in human behavior will determine our ability to address energy problems is both encouraging as well as daunting. The model frames the energy/climate problem as a human problem. Without increased efficiency, which will result from changes in human behavior, values, and decision-making, investing in renewable technologies will fail to address energy and climate issues.

Chuck then expanded his economic model to the global scale. He stated that the cost of addressing climate change on an international scale would total 1% of global GDP, while the cost of NOT acting to address climate change would cost between 5-20% of global GDP. He gave damage from sea levels risings and severe weather episodes, and food, water and health crises as a few sources of the inaction costs. It is models like these that effectively illustrate not only the immediacy of the energy/climate problem, but also the range of costs that our generation and future generations will incur.

Personal Action Plan 1: Creating a Food Index

How well do you know your food? Over the last two hours, I have gotten to know mine a lot better. I have just finished compiling an initial food index of every item of food in my house. A few stats that I found interesting. Out of 65 items:

• 40% of my food is organic

• 14% was purchased without packaging
• 63% is contained in recyclable or reusable packaging
• 15% has packaging that will eventually end up in the trash

• The average distance my food traveled from its point of distribution to me is 1,030 miles (800 miles when not including the 5 international items)
• 23% of my food is local, traveling less than 50 miles from its point of distribution to me

I will use this information as the basis for my personal action plan. Based on these initial calculations, I will try to increase the amount of my food that is organic, decrease the amount of food-packing waste I generate, and decrease the average distance my food travels. Further details on my personal action plan coming soon... 

Bioregionalism

Tid bit from book review of Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and Practices. Reviewed by Davidya Kasperzik, posted on worldchanging.org

• "Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems is a compendium of lists and theories that is a useful reference and for some a potential guide to right living. The authors are enamored with the seminal principles of “bioregionalism.” Those include the notion that there are natural geographic boundaries and scaled biotic systems that can be the essential unit for sustainable living. Carrying capacity as a derivative of local resources, ecosystems, economic systems and culture is a theory that has substance to the authors and this reviewer. Getting the right balance, equilibrium if you will would be an outcome of conscious design, lifestyle choices, and a wise economic model."
  

I was instantly intrigued when I came across this passage. I have been attracted to planning issues on the regional scale for a few years now, mostly in the context of regional transportation and the live/work paradigm. This idea of bioregionalism - and the region as the appropriate scale for the exchange of human resources and systems, is almost tantalizing. What if all the food we ate and the things we bought and sold were exchanged within a few hundred mile radius? Would it ever be possible? I imagine that cities would have to condense to free up space for agriculture and industry. Instead of sprawling suburbs, what if there were strict city entities surrounded by circles of agriculture. Cities could be connected by regional trains - a nationwide puzzle of connect-the-dots. 

Who Killed the Electric Car?

Notes from movie: Who Killed the Electric Car? Viewed October 1, 2008

• Electric cars first invented in 1960's
• Every gallon of gas burned adds 19 lbs of CO2 to the air
• 1987- GM Sun Racer. Solar car prototype
• California Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate -1990
• Saturn EV1 – the first commercial electric car
• Consumer doubts:
1. Are they strong, big and dependable?
2. Where do I charge it?
• Oil companies paid for editorials reporting negative testimonies about the car
• Framed as a wealthy person’s vehicle
• “You’ll never see a sexy lady or man leaning on an electric car. And well, that’s how they sell cars.”
• Hydrogen fuel cells – big competition – backed by car companies and lawmakers
• EV1’s purchased from dealer, then crushed in a junk lot in the middle of Arizona!
• Eventually only 78 Ev1’s left. Activists offered to buy them from GM, but GM wouldn’t sell.
• Who killed the E-car?
1. Consumers: Were they interested? Did they know it existed? Did they know the differences of the car? The environmental benefits?
2. Oil companies: lobbied for opposition to the electric car
3. Government: sued California to stop electric car. Influence of auto and oil industries.
• No change in car fuel efficiency since 1970’s
• 1987: 8.8 million barrels of oil imported per day
• 1005: 13.5 million barrels of oil imported per day
• OPEC nations agree to lower price of fuel in 1980’s (keeping the junkies addicted!)
• Japanese car companies began developing hybrid technology in response to US hybrid prototypes. US never released prototypes, while Japanese companies took over niche market
• “Clean cars are too important to be left to the auto industry”
4. Hydrogen fuel cell: still 15-20 years out. 5 miracles for hydrogen cars:
• cost $1 mil
• not enough room for hydrogen fuel
• fuel is expensive
• need fueling infrastructure
• competing technologies must not improve

Lecture Notes: Doug Holt

Notes from Lecture by Doug Holt, Oxford University - September 26, 2008

Marketing and social anthropology -> applying marketing perspective and analytical theory to social and environmental problems

- In order to reduce US CO2 output to be 'level with the rest of the world, the US would have to reduce CO2 output by 80-90% by 2040

- Why adpoting a personal green doctrine won't solve a national/global problem

* I find this really interesting - i have to agree that personal behavior and "good samaritan greenness" can only go so far. There has to be stronger incentives and more tangible consequences for changing collective behavior.

- What needs to happen from a policy perspective?

> Put a monetary value on carbon

> Value based on "badness" of CO2 generation

> Let the market take over - cap and trade scheme

- Why don't we have an effective social movement to instigate climate change?

> Nothing at the national level

- Critiquing WeCanSolveIt.org: climate change website

> Mass marketing campaign

> Al Gore as figure head presents problems -> Al Gore, a face with pre-set political implications

> Top-down fictitious march -> a cyber march. Why go all the way to Washington, when you can march online?

- Framing the movement: jobs/new economy, energy independence (kin to WWII, Apollo expeditions)

- Passive vs. active environmental/social diffusion (where people stand with environmental activism) The breakdown:

0.1% = Activists and scientists

10% = Local environmental activists

15% = Concerned passives

40 % = Weak knowledge, vaguely sympathetic

35 % = Anti-issue fatalists

> Cultural entrepreneurs instigate passive citizen sympathizers to become active

- Barriers to environmental social movement:

> Current cultural model of climate change (complexity, politicization)

> Current cultural model of mitigation (carbon consumerism, market naturalism, political culture)

> Leadership (lack there of)

> Efficacy (local v. national, no clear pathway to collective action)

- The US faith in science is not very deep

- Problem with "green laundry lists": free rider problem, measurement issues

- Reinventing the economy -> needs to happen! Not currently seen as an option

- Scale -> local action -> see and feel and touch 

- Structural limits -> cultural, political, physical... the list goes on...

Lecture Notes: James Howard Kuntsler

Notes from Chautauqua Lecture Series: Catastrophe or Opportunity? Climate and Energy Action Heroes Forum

Keynote speaker: James Howard Kuntsler

Chautauqua Auditorium - Sept 20, 2008

- The American dream/lifestyle is "the greatest misallocation of resources the world has known"

- The end of the suburban project -> we simply do not have the global resources to continue the American lifestyle

- The new American religion: the worship of unearned riches

- Technology DOES NOT EQUAL energy

- The "they'll come up with something" excuse

- Elite environmentalists are only having the 'technology conversation'

- Rediscovering the human urban habitat!

- SCALE (scale of everything - lifestyle, built env, consumption...)

- Passenger Railroad system!

- The airlines are dying!

- Towns that have an intimate relationship with agriculture will have an advantage in the future

- What is the appropriate urban scale?

- In the future, will we see a re-separation of urban and rural?

- America is full of places not worth caring about -> places not worth caring about are not worth defending

- Life is tragic -> history does not care if we destroy our own civilization

- It is up to us to generate our own hope!

James Howard Kunstler Website

James Howard Kunstler on TedTalks

Ideas for Personal Action Plan

Electricity use

Water use

Diet

- Food journal

- Organic vs. conventional: cost comparison, distance traveled, pollution generated from transport, pesticide amount

- Before and after comparison using GIS maps??

Consumption (packaging, materials)

Educating others in alternative transport

- Perhaps a pamphlet to hand out at new-student orientation

- Reasons to commute alternatively

- Maps to bike shops in Boulder

- Best routes to school

- Safety reminders

- On-campus transportation support

RE: Regional Planning Will Make the Problem Worse

Response to article posted on CULearn by Albert Bartlett: Regional Planning Will Make the Problem Worse (http://www.terrain.org/articles/4/bartlettclark.htm)

Is regional planning the solution or the problem?

"Smart growth is a means of making unsustainability as pleasant as possible." - A. Bartlett

I have to agree with the author that there really is no such thing as sustainable development and that population growth is the most formidable threat to a "more sustainable" human lifestyle. However, I strongly disagree that regional planning makes the problem worse. Regional planning is, unfortunately, a reaction to a problem in too many instances, but it does coordinate adjacent urban areas and facilitates better communication, transportation, and exchange of ideas between the areas. Population growth is inevitable, particularly in desirable locations such as the Front Range. Without regional planning to structure the inevitable growth, the outcome will be far worse.