Why you should care about Keystone XL

Our energy policy is a mess. This stems largely from our consumption patterns and from fear-mongering by entrenched corporate interests and the politicians they feed. The on-going debate about the Keystone XL pipeline project in America, which will bring oil extracted from tar sands in pristine northern Canadian lands (and have already extracted giant environmental tolls on the affected areas) is actually a small bit in a much larger debate.

That debate is where our energy future lies.

As many environmentalists have said for years now, we must invest in truly renewable energies. As many industry experts have said for years now, it will be decades before renewable energies can provide the amount of energy that we need. The truth of course, is somewhere in-between. It does not take a genius to see that we cannot ramp up alternative energies at a pace sufficient to eliminate fossil fuel usage in the near-term 5 year range. Duh. Yet, the alternative narrative, that we just don't have the resources to plow into making alternative energies more cost-effective or attractive is false also. We may not be able to generate enough energy in the near term, but it's better to get started on that road now rather than in the future, right?

Instead, there is much money being plowed into alternative fossil fuels. As this article from the BBC on shale gas shows, we should be very wary of our love affair with these sources of energy. These sources do nothing to wean our planet off highly polluting and unsustainable use of fossil fuels, and they are extremely damaging to the environment at the point of extraction as well as through their entire life-cycle too.

The truth is, our solutions lie in reducing fossil fuel usage, ramping up and investing some of those billions of dollars of oil profits into wind and solar technologies (er, tax oil company profits anyone? as opposed to giving tax breaks to them? uh, duh?), and - here is the great big huge grey elephant in the room - change the way we consume energy. The fact is, we have exported a societal paradigm to the rest of the world built upon inexhaustible supplies of cheap fossil fuels, which admittedly contain more energy per unit of measure than just about any other fuel source.

How else do we explain the ridiculous proliferation of automobiles carrying single passengers around glorified moving parking lots (aka roads) around the world? Or the incessant building of concrete boxes with no thought to air flows or self-cooling and require around the clock air conditioning or heating? Or the addiction to plastics and other disposable items made for our "convenience" but that are instead just burying our planet under incredible heaps of wasted resources?

We must address energy consumption. Beyond just cutting personal electricity usage or even mandating better fuel standards, we must acknowledge that the era of cheap energy has passed and realign our societies to accommodate a new reality where we make choices to maximize the efficiency of our energy usage. This is why Keystone XL matters. Instead of acknowledging and putting our money into achieving a standard of living given this vision of the future, the Keystone pipeline is the last gasp of a system clinging desperately to a disappearing reality. Can we access ever more strange sources of fossil fuels and continue our addiction to them for another few decades, damned be the environmental impacts and the viability of the society we leave future generations? Yes, we probably can. But should we?

A Critical Juncture for Alternative Energy

A recent New York Times article highlights the critical battle we're facing as citizens who want to see a more sustainable future. A ballot measure in November will essentially kill off a bill passed four years ago in the State Assembly that calls for greenhouse gas reductions to 1990 levels, going into effect in 2012. Not only does this impending change bode well for our overall emissions and the environment, it has also been key in promoting the development of alternative energies.

Now however, according to the article: "A ballot initiative to suspend a milestone California law curbing greenhouse gas emissions is drawing a wave of contributions from out-of-state oil companies, raising concerns among conservationists as it emerges as a test of public support for potentially costly environmental measures during tough economic times."

The Koch family (including David Koch and Charles Koch - written about in a piece in the New Yorker recently) have been large contributors to the ballot initiative. As seen in the New Yorker article, essentially anything outside of the arts that the Koch brothers support is something all citizens who care about a better, more equal, sustainable future should oppose. Unlike many things in the progressive world, this is pretty cut and dried; if the Kochs support it, oppose it with your life. It can't be good for you.

Back in the New York Times article, northern California assemblyman Dan Logue from the 3rd District (in Humboldt) is quoted as saying: “What we’re saying is, this is not the time for political correctness. This is a time for putting America back to work; let the experiments happen later.”

Last I checked, reducing greenhouse gases to attempt to limit atmospheric concentration was not "political correctness" but a rather critical matter of trying to preserve a semblance of normalcy in our climatic patterns - patterns that essentially drive everything from rainfall to growing seasons to fresh water availability. Ask Mr. Logue about these things though, and I'm sure he'll give you either a blank look or blather on about how "nothing has been proven."

While I'm in a skewering mood - I now feel good about having boycotted Valero for the past 5 years or so. I never trusted them, and now that I know they have contributed $4 MILLION dollars to stopping any limits from being placed on emissions, I have proof that Valero is a crappy corporate citizen. (Thankfully, Chevron, one of two oil companies I am willing to buy gas from - Shell being the other - has NOT supported this ballot initiative.)

Moreover, I always find the economic damage argument (used by Mr. Logue above) and also cited in the Times article: "Some oil industry leaders said it would force them to invest millions of dollars to comply, and asserted that it would force companies to cut jobs and raise the price of gas at the pumps." The article goes on to say that the anti-emissions limit forces have raised over $8 million dollars, while the pro-limit forces seem to have a similar amount. So, let's do some arithmetic. Let's say $20 million (at least) gets spent on THIS campaign to determine whether or not we should implement regulations on carbon emissions that, admittedly, WILL cost money to comply with.

(Now, that money should be seen as an INVESTMENT, not a cost, since when done right, it can lead to better research, greater competitiveness, and potentially new markets opening up - which can also lead to more jobs. But I digress.)

$20 million dollars on ONE campaign, not including the countless millions spent already trying to sway public opinion about the issue. Now, maybe I'm just naive, but wouldn't all that money be better spent just improving our industries instead of trying to get people to believe that it costs too much? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to spend millions of dollars to tell the public that you don't have millions of dollars to spend? When are we all going to wake up and see that these companies (and the Kochs of the world) are playing on our everyday fears so THEY can make more and more money? It isn't a coincidence that in the past 30 years, the income of the top 1% of the nation has grown 176% while those at the bottom? Well, at least they're getting more than inflation: 6%.

Action:
1. Californians, vote NO on Prop 23 this Nov.
2. Boycott Valero and send letters to their Board telling them to stop supporting bad legislation and start investing in a cleaner energy future
3. Boycott all Koch Industries subsidiaries, including Georgia Pacific Paper
4. Spread the word!

Climate targets

Both the US and China have announced their own climate change carbon reduction targets this past week, in preparation for the upcoming global climate conference in Copenhagen. The US has committed to hard reduction targets finally (although, because of how our system is set up here, this may actually amount to nothing - just like the Kyoto Protocol was never in effect due to Congress' disapproval.) Likewise, China has committed to a reduction of sorts, although it is a reduction in "energy intensity" as opposed to the more traditional absolute figures used by developed nations.

You can find more details on these developments both at the BBC and at the New York Times.

I'll try to provide some more opinion on this in the run-up to Copenhagen, but for now, I'll leave it at this and say Happy Thanksgiving to anyone reading!

The wrong solutions...

It is distressing to read some of the new media coverage about how we can deal with the prospect of climate change on the planet. There is a small but growing cadre of people who believe that we should begin to put attention to "geo-engineering" to counter the effects of increased carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. The BBC recently had an article discussing a new Royal Society report about the feasibility of some of these solutions, in which the Royal Society concludes that some of the most sci-fi-like engineering solutions are "technically feasible."

There are many proposals out there, ranging from what has become "accepted" like carbon capture and storage to more "out-there" ones like shooting reflective ions into the atmosphere to bounce sunlight back off the planet to having mirrors in space to injecting sea salt into the atmosphere.

Yes, you read all of those options correctly.

All I can say is... "what!?!?"

This is a classic case of human hubris, where we feel like we can outsmart nature and create these fantastic technological solutions to man-made problems. Yet, the truth of the matter is that nature's complexity is well-beyond our capacity for understanding or technical abilities. We simply have no idea about what would work or not, and more dangerously, we have no idea of what impacts these "solutions" would actually have. We cannot model these things, because we not only do not know the values of the variables in the model, we don't even know which variables there are. There is no doubt in my mind that we will end up creating greater problems than carbon and climate change with any of these proposed technological solutions.

A growing number of people though are embracing these ideas, and even the Royal Society - although pushing for reductions in carbon first - has jumped on the bandwagon and advocates for funding and further research in this area. Laughable really, when the real solution to the problem is actually so simple and "easy" compared to the technological solutions; stop emitting greenhouse gases and change the way that we live. The reality is that we are not faced with an unsolvable scientific problem. We are faced with an immensely embedded political problem. If the nations of the world could just come to an agreement on how to cut greenhouse gases, we wouldn't need any of these other outlandish proposals. However, as is often the case, it is easier for governments to throw tons of money into new technologies than it is for them to make the common sense choice that may require general sacrifices from everyone on the globe.

I'm all for thinking about climate change adaptation, but please, let's be real here. The answer to reversing climate change is simple - stop emitting greenhouse gases. Figuring out how to cool the planet down while continuing to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not just the easy way out, it is ridiculous and a sad commentary on our current societies.

Cook your gas...?

An interesting story recently ran in the Herald Tribune talking about a budding cooking-oil recycling industry. As you can read about in the story, the movement to convert used cooking oil into gas for cars is gaining a little traction and greater acceptance by motorists.

"Two years ago, in the affluent London suburb of Leatherhead, Chris Leveritt starting filtering oil from his restaurant, Trattoria Vecchia, to run the family car. He is now creating a small commercial factory to produce 132 gallons a day in his backyard. Leveritt's partner, a wine distributor, picks up jugs of used oil when he delivers wine to dozens of restaurants in and around London." (Full article here.)

Though, admittedly limited still only to those who are a bit crazy-tree-hugger-esque, the news bodes well for the environment as it points to people trying to think and act a little differently as well as the fact that awareness about the human impact on earth systems is slowly getting more and more mainstreamed. It does not however say much about reducing consumption or curtailing the habits and luxuries that have led to this crisis. One step at a time though right?

High-speed rail?

Having spent a lot of time in the past decade living outside of the country and traveling by many means other than car, it's always been interesting attempting to have conversations with backpackers and travelers from other countries about how best to get around the US. Invariably, someone asks, "well can't you just take a train?" My response is usually a hearty laugh and then a sad shake of the head accompanied by a wry grin.

The truth is, you could (I wouldn't even know where to start), but the experience would be far from what these travelers are expecting. Indeed, I had to go to China to take my first ever, honest-to-goodness, real-life train ride. At 21. Since then, I've discovered the beauty of trains and find it sad that we don't have more here in the US. The LA-SF corridor would be ideal for a high-speed train, something that averages 180mph would take just over 2 hours to go point to point, making it highly competitive with air travel. Averaging 150mph, it would be just under three hours, still worthy of consideration when you factor in all the wait times connected with flying. For those of you thinking (flying is so fast though..) let me just quickly remind you of how much "cleaner" rail travel is than air travel. :)

So, it's really good to hear that the new stimulus package has set-aside $8 billion for the development of high-speed rail in the US. Now, as you can see from reading this particular article in the IHT (Slice of U.S. stimulus package will go to faster trains) don't expect to be riding the rails at 180 or even 150mph anytime soon. $8 billion is, unfortunately, close to nothing when it comes to making a dent in a system that has been neglected for probably 60 years. But, it is VERY heartening to know that this debate is once again a debate, and that we are finally beginning to consider alternatives to automobile and airplane travel again.

I am looking forward to the day when I can look up from my plugged in laptop with wireless internet to see the California coast zipping by outside my window at 200+mph.

Where has the logic gone?

Saw one of those horrendous mobile billboard trucks on the road today and was VERY surprised to see "We do it green" advertised on the back of the truck. What?!?! If you don't know what a mobile billboard company is, basically, they drive small trucks around with a big billboard stuck on the back, advertising something or another. It's easily one of the best examples of how our economy has completely lost it's mind, as this business model no doubt promises the potential for profit (or else it wouldn't exist), even though they make no sense whatsoever from an environmental, social, or any other perspective. Driving a billboard around to advertise so that other people driving around can go and buy some product that they don't need. This is EXACTLY how our economy should operate.

But, beyond this insanity, this company has the AUDACITY to talk about greening their business? I'm sorry, as much as I'm for eco-modernization, technological breakthroughs, CSR, and the like, SOME business models just SHOULD NOT EXIST. Green-washing on this scale is either complete self-delusion or pandering to current interests.

Check out what these guys have to say here: Do It Outdoors

Funny. Or sad. I can't tell.