Planet Forward Blog

The Unsettling Attacks on Green Cities and Counties

by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA | 10:15 am February 16th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

By Michael Schmitz, Executive Director of ICLEI USA

Back in 2010, when Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes accused Denver’s bicycle sharing program of being part of an insidious United Nations conspiracy to take over America’s communities, a nation chuckled at the absurdity. “Cities Engage in Vast Biking Conspiracy (Shh!)” read a New York Times headline.

More than a year later, the same bizarre conspiracy theory is no laughing matter for anyone who cares about their community’s future. Across the country, a loud minority of protestors, many aligned with the Tea Party, have made it their mission to derail not only the green programs of cities, towns, and counties, but the broader planning efforts of local governments to improve local transportation, safeguard public health, and increase economic competitiveness. Last week the success of their efforts landed them back in the Times, only now on the front page.

Can We Talk About Local Solutions?

We should be concerned. As our nation attempts to recover from the economic crisis and a record-breaking year of extreme weather that cost us tens of billions of dollars, locally driven solutions are the key, and healthy community dialogue about them is more important than ever. Now is the time for people to ask, How can we attract more businesses to our town? How can we better prepare our communities for more frequent floods or droughts? What kind of community do we want to leave for our children and grandchildren? It’s a conversation for everybody to take part in: business leaders, environmentalists, labor leaders, neighborhood groups, Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

The problem is that the Tea Party groups and their allies seem intent on shutting down local dialogues, rather than discussing and debating ideas and solutions. Across the country, they protest the very idea of their local government running an energy efficiency program, preserving historic buildings, or creating a local plan to repair aging infrastructure.

A Conspiracy Theory Takes Hold

For the majority of Americans who support things like local clean energy jobs or planting more trees on city streets, the natural question has become, Why are extremists waging a war on common sense in our own backyards?

But it’s not common sense, insist the protestors. Local initiatives to plan for the future or make a community more livable—especially when they mention the word “sustainability”—are all part of Agenda 21, which they believe is a vast UN conspiracy. “Once they put their fangs into our communities, they’ll suck all the blood out of it,” said Glenn Beck.

Even with no evidence to back up their story, the activists see an Agenda 21 conspiracy everywhere they look:

In Santa Rosa, CA, Agenda 21 protestors shouted down speakers at a Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting to get public feedback on a regional plan to improve transportation. Police were called.
In Norfolk, VA, activists protested a regional plan to protect economic assets and natural habitats from sea-level rise due to a changing climate.
In Rutherford County, TN, a local zoning resolution was protested as a UN plot to take away private property. The list goes on.

Renewing the Sustainability Conversation

As more misinformation spreads, the problem is ultimately one of communications. My organization, ICLEI USA, is increasing its efforts to share the success stories of U.S. cities and counties who are reaping the benefits of smart planning and sustainability initiatives. We’ve got to take back the hijacked term, “sustainability,” which isn’t a secret plot but a mainstream concept embraced by everybody from local governments driving bottom-up solutions to countless corporations like IBM, Office Depot, and Intel, who agree that saving money through efficiency measures and reducing their environmental footprint is good for business.

The bottom line is that we need to skip the conspiracy theories and get back to the much-needed conversations on energy independence, economic vitality, and the future of our communities.

Michael Schmitz is the Executive Director of ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability USA, the leading membership organization of local governments committed to climate action, clean energy, and sustainability, with more than 550 members in the United States and 1,100 worldwide.

First Nuclear License in 40 Years

by The Energy Blog | 5:23 pm February 14th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

Posted by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson of Public Agenda on the Great Energy Challenge Blog

The Watts Bar 1 reactor was the last built in the U.S. Will there be more? Photo: Tennessee Valley Authority

Sometimes the decisions we make are less decisive than they seem. Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its first license for a new plant in forty years. But that decision, significant though it is, doesn’t do anything to settle the major questions we face on energy. Here’s three points to consider when you think about what this means for nuclear power’s future:

Can we really finish nuclear plants on time and on budget?

The Vogtle plants licensed last week are projected to come on line in 2016 or 2017 and cost about $14 billion. That puts them in a race with the Watts Bar 2 plant in Tennessee, which is expected to come on line in 2013 – nearly forty years after it was first approved. Any bold promises of a nuclear renaissance in the United States (or fears, depending on your point of view) have to deal with this reality: community opposition and cost overruns have plagued the U.S. nuclear industry. That’s one reason why most utilities are choosing to go with natural gas for new plants. Yes, natural gas plants produce greenhouse gases, but as a business proposition, they’re cheaper and much less aggravating to build. And unlike wind and solar, they work around the clock.

If the Vogtle plants really do come in on schedule, however, a lot of utility companies may rethink that equation.

We haven’t made any progress on the biggest downside of nuclear power: disposing of the waste.

Amazingly, we still have no real plan for getting rid of the 72,000 tons of spent fuel we’ve already got, much less what we’re going to produce in the future. The proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada has effectively been cancelled. We’ve chosen not to reprocess spent fuel, as they do in France. So we’re storing the spent fuel at the reactor sites themselves – at best a solution that will last decades, when we’re dealing with a problem that will be around for 10,000 years.

A blue-ribbon federal commission on the nuclear waste problem released a report last month concluding that reprocessing isn’t the answer, and we still need an actual waste depository, run by a special agency set up for that purpose. But in that case, the real question is where. All the commission could say is that our previous strategy of having Congress pick a depository site won’t work. The panel argued for “consent-based” process, similar to that used in Finland, France, Spain and Sweden, in which the government offers major incentives and engages communities to get them to accept a facility rather than trying to force it upon them.

Full disclosure: we’re strong believers in public engagement. Communities, and nations, should take full ownership of these fundamental decisions. Having a community accept a nuclear waste facility isn’t impossible – as the commission pointed out, it’s been done elsewhere. But let’s not kid ourselves: it’s a tough sell, and requires real public trust in government, which is in short supply right now.

What’s the real implication if we shift away from nuclear power?

Japan, not surprisingly, said it would stop building new reactors after the Fukushima disaster, and Germany has said it will phase out nuclear power. On the other hand, electricity hungry China and India show no signs of turning away from their huge investments in nuclear construction.

Nuclear energy still remains the source of about 20 percent of all U.S. electricity, and doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. As part of its annual World Energy Outlook report, the International Energy Agency examined the implications of a major reversal on nuclear energy, cutting investment in half. The IEA concluded that pulling back on nuclear would give a boost to renewables – but it would also increase the use of coal worldwide. So dropping nuclear only helps on climate change and energy supply if we’re also shifting that money to new investments in renewable energy. Even then, we’d still need to face the crucial challenge of developing renewables that can run 24/7 and produce “baseload” power, the way nuclear, coal and natural gas plants do.

The real problem on U.S. energy policy is that we can’t seem to make fundamental decisions. There is no perfect energy source. Bureaucrats may issue licenses, but the Congress, the Administration, and the public at large will make the choices. Until they’re all making choices that recognize and accept the real-world consequences, we’ll barely make a dent in the problem.

Solar: Does Size Matter?

by Susanna, PF Web Maven | 5:20 pm February 14th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

A key issue for scaling up solar is where to put it: on every home or in huge arrays on the desert?

Some businesses, like Sungevity, are trying to get solar panels on every home by breaking down the up-front cost barrier. They partner with financial institutions to spread the cost of going solar into a zero-money down monthly lease. This would allow more homeowners to invest in solar panels for their own homes. In urban settings, this can be particularly useful because cities can start to take advantage of previously unused productive space and generate energy for the city.

On the other end of the scale, the folks at Solar Reserve are thinking 2.5-square miles bigger is the best way to store solar energy for large-scale distribution. They use thousands of mirrors to reflect and concentrate sunlight onto a central point to generate heat, which in turn is used to generate electricity. They can take advantage of places like Tonopah, Nevada, where it’s sunny 50% of the time, to build the largest solar tower project in the world.

Or, maybe it’s smarter to take a more regional approach. The George Washington University has teamed up with Skyline Innovations and installed three solar thermal systems on the roofs of GW’s residence halls. This energy system collects energy that students can use in their dorms for hot water.

What do you think? Personal, utility-scale or regional: does size matter?

Bonus: Do you know how solar panels work? Brush up on your solar knowledge with this Science Corner on how solar energy works:

A Few Smart Ideas to Clean Up and Re-energize Cities

by Susanna, PF Web Maven | 4:53 pm February 6th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

More people live in cities now than in any other time in human history–nearly half the world’s population. They are the economic engines of our society, but they are also the source of 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

We all have a choice in where we live, and a lot of us are moving to places where we can enjoy parks, clean air and healthy waterways. Smart cities are attracting residents — and talent — by making investments in infrastructure that save money, clean up and integrate sustainability into city functions (think sports arenas).

We have found a few ideas about innovative cities on Planet Forward that have potential to change the game in our urban environments. Will these ideas work? Let us know in the comments below. Want to learn more about smart cities? Check out Planet Forward’s new interactive map!

Pecan Street Project — Austin, Texas

One area where much innovation is needed in urban environments is energy. The Pecan Street project in Austin, Texas is becoming a living laboratory of sustainability and energy efficiency. Launched by a $10.4 million smart grid demonstration grant from the Department of Energy, the Pecan Street project integrates green building practices and renewable energy with a community-based smart grid that will provide researchers with real data on how a green community of the future might look like.

Deep Lake Water Cooling System — Toronto, Canada

Often consumers don’t have much choice in what kind of energy their utilities provide, but city governments can make big investments that can make significant improvements to a city’s overall energy use. Take, for example, Toronto and their deep lake water cooling system. This system is able to take drinking water from Lake Ontario and cool office towers, replacing conventional air conditioning. According to Toronto’s website, the system reduced one building’s energy use by 3 million kwh per year.

Onondaga Lake Cleanup — Syracuse, New York

While some cities focus on the future, others have to clean up their past before they can move forward. Syracuse, New York was once known for having the most polluted lake in America, Onondaga Lake. But, before that, the lake was a popular tourist and fishing destination. Because of industrial pollution, in 1940 swimming was banned, in 1972 fishing was banned and finally in 1994, it was added to the Federal Superfund National Priorities List.

After an aggressive remediation and cleanup campaign, Syracuse is cleaning up. But, will their new green infrastructure projects keep their manufacturing industry and attract new residents?

Rainwater Collection Systems — Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

After heavy storms, cities have to deal with what to do with all the water. Many cities now have antiquated water processing systems that overflow their storm drains and release toxic, unprocessed water into their waterways. Philadelphia is experimenting in places like Waterview Recreation Center to create a sustainable hangout by using flow-through planters, tree trenches and even porous pavement. Do you think these innovative changes will grow beyond this local rec center?

Mariner’s Safeco Stadium — Seattle, Washington

Some cities wouldn’t be the same without their sports teams. That’s why stadiums are becoming test-beds for integrated–and easy to use–sustainability systems. The Seattle Mariner’s Safeco Stadium hits a homerun with their completely revamped composting system…and recycling system…and energy system. But here’s a question: would you rather have free bobble heads or composted dirt?

Cities and Smart Communities

by Susanna, PF Web Maven | 3:08 pm February 3rd, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

What makes a city most attractive to you? Clean waterways, green energy or living laboratories of energy efficiency? See how some U.S. cities are attracting new residents on our interactive map.

Check it out

Another Angle on Energy Jobs: Location, Location, Location

by The Energy Blog | 10:50 am February 2nd, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

Posted by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson of Public Agenda

It’s probably a safe bet that nearly everything this election year, including energy policy, is going to be viewed through the prism of jobs. And fair enough: the Great Recession cost us nearly 8.4 million of them, after a decade where America barely broke even on job growth. Surveys show the economy as the public’s overwhelming concern, beating out every environmental or international question.

No wonder, then, that proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline focused on its potential for creating jobs. No wonder also that clean energy advocates promote the potential of “green jobs” in a global economy that needs alternative energy sources. President Obama ended up endorsing an “all of the above” approach in the state of the Union address, calling for more tax breaks for alternative energy as well as opening up new oil and gas drilling areas.

We’ve been thinking a lot about jobs lately, and there’s a point that’s frequently overlooked: it’s not just what kind of energy jobs we have, it’s where they are.

The work world has been shifting under our feet because of the combined impact of globalization and technology. Advancing technology is making us more productive, but productivity by definition means getting more work done with fewer people. And technology also is a key factor in globalization, allowing a whole range of jobs to be done anywhere. That’s where the fear of “offshoring” jobs comes from.

Yet the striking thing about a wide range of energy jobs is that they’re so strongly linked to a specific location – and that’s true for both alternative energy and fossil fuels.

When Princeton economist Alan Blinder did his pioneering research on offshoring and globalization, he found that the reasons a job might move offshore aren’t just lower wages or less regulation. The key questions are whether a job must be done in a particular location, and whether it requires face to face interaction.

You can see how this plays out for fossil fuels. Yes, oil in particular is traded in global markets, while technology allows those markets to communicate worldwide. Oil and gas are also shipped all over the world. But the actual oil and gas drilling rigs need to be where the oil and gas is. Coal mines have to be dug where the coal is. When Blinder created a grid ranking jobs by whether they could be moved or not, he cited roustabouts, drilling technicians and other such positions as among the jobs least likely to move. Those jobs stay where they are until the well runs dry — which of course is another issue.

But this also works in favor of alternative energy as well. Electricity sources, in general, have to be relatively close to where the power gets used. If you’re going to install solar panels on your home, then someone has to climb up on your roof to do it, and realistically they’re not going to commute from Mumbai. The jobs for electricians and technicians who will build wind farms, solar facilities, and the new power grid are all going to be created here.

Manufacturing that equipment, however, is another matter. The solar panels themselves can be shipped from China – and so, for that matter, can the drilling equipment used in oil and gas fields. The real question on energy jobs isn’t whether we’re going to produce or install energy here in the United States. It’s whether we’re going to build the equipment.

But that takes us back to the core reasons why manufacturing jobs are declining not only in the United States but in nearly every Western nation: technology is automating a lot of the routine tasks that used to be done by workers on assembly lines. And lower wages and rising education levels make developing nations a strong alternative for the manufacturing jobs that are left.

These are big picture trends that are hard to overcome with the tools that politicians usually deploy, like tax credits and trade barriers. It’s not impossible—the calculations companies make about whether to manufacture here or abroad can be really complex and constantly shifting. But as this New York Times story about the iPhone shows, even when something’s invented here, there can be big hurdles to building it here. According to the Times, Apple needed 8,700 engineers to supervise 200,000 workers to manufacture the iPhone. Company managers estimated it could take nine months to find that many engineers here.

Any energy policy—no matter what kind of energy it favors— produces jobs here in the United States. But clean energy advocates should remember that, for most Americans, job creation isn’t some talking point you throw in as an afterthought. It’s the public’s core concern. It needs to be addressed without overpromising – or underdelivering.

Natural Gas, Electric or Fuel-Cell Powered Cars?

by Susanna, PF Web Maven | 9:57 pm January 26th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

Get a first glimpse into what a few automakers hoping will be your fuel-efficient future car. Whether because of Obama’s renewed call for increased vehicular efficiency or just to meet market demand, automakers have brought some interesting new cars to the show.

Want to ask Amy a question? You can ask her on her “Ask an Expert” page.

Honda’s Natural Gas Vehicle

Toyota’s Fuel Cell Sedan

Ford’s Electric Focus

Honda Fit EV

Toyota’s Prius V

Driving Innovation: Washington DC’s Auto Show

by Susanna, PF Web Maven | 4:07 pm January 26th, 2012 | 2 Comments »

What will it take to get more electric vehicles on the road? Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and James Wisemen of Toyota got a head start at that question at yesterday’s Policy Summit at the Washington DC Auto Show. It was the day after the President’s State of the Union address, where he reiterated his commitment to “double-down on a clean energy industry” as a path to a stronger American manufacturing sector:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse…Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

But which part of the American auto industry is back? Last year, Obama called for “a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” but we’re nowhere near that number, and most industry analysts thing that goal is unattainable.

Why? You can ask National Journal’s Energy Correspondent Amy Harder, who will join us live tonight from the Washington Auto Show. Ask Amy a question>>

But James Wisemen of Toyota offered his reasons at the Policy Summit, arguing that American workers are failing to get the education they need to be eligible for the jobs on the factory floor.

Part of the challenge: today’s auto plants are not the the ones of our grandfathers. They demand new skills and employ high-tech engineering, zero-waste programs, and some are moving toward being LEED-certified.

But it’s not just where they’re working it’s what they’re working on. All the clean energy that the President is calling for will be converted into electricity. And that electricity will go to powering our cars, but not quite yet according to IHS expert, Rebecca Lindland. Only 2% of drivers are taking on electric vehicles–people just don’t want to buy them.

But if we can get that marketing right, we might see some really cool cars on the road in the coming years. Auto manufacturers are working on more efficient batteries that will be able to power bigger cars for longer trips, advanced hybrid technology and even some traditional internal combustion engine cars that compete with the hybrids in MPGs.

Tonight! Planet Forward at the Washington DC Auto Show

by Susanna, PF Web Maven | 8:29 am January 26th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

Tonight, Planet Forward will be at the Washington DC Auto Show’s preview night. We’ll bring you the first peaks into this year’s gadgets and gizmos.

We’ve asked our expert, Amy Harder to take your questions about how to move to next-generation green vehicles. She’ll answer your questions and preview vehicles on the floor of the show tonight (Thursday, 1/26) at 5:30 pm EST. Follow the conversation at #WashAutoShow.

But first, we asked you, “Would you buy an electric car?” And we got some interesting answers. Check it out:

The Latest Breakthrough in Biofuels: Low-Cost Seaweed?

by Climate Central | 2:03 pm January 25th, 2012 | Be the first to comment! »

By Katrina Schwartz, KQED Climate Watch

The newest biofuel making a splash is seaweed.

Researchers at Berkeley-based Bio Architecture Lab (BAL) have discovered a way to genetically manufacture a microbe that can break down the sugars in seaweed, so that it can be used as a fuel source. Biofuels from sources other than corn have generated a lot of hype but so far not the large-scale production necessary for them to be considered an integral part of the U.S. energy future (see Lauren Sommer’s recent biofuels “reality check,” for KQED’s QUEST).

There are many kinds of algae. The ones that have received most attention are microalgaes that grow in freshwater ponds. The U.S. Department of Energy has invested heavily in research on microalgaes. Defense officials are looking to oil extracted from the freshwater scum to fuel military machinery. Last week a California Report story highlighted the efforts of researchers in San Diego to scale up production of oil from algae, in order to bring down the cost and make it viable on the energy market.

The Berkeley lab’s discovery has huge implications for converting seaweed to ethanol, a component of gasoline. The engineered microbe can break down the primary sugar in seaweed, alginate, which other microbes could not. Once the sugar is broken down it can be used to make ethanol.

In an article on the breakthrough, The Guardian’s Damian Carrington reports on the potential of seaweed as a fast-reproducing fuel source.

A seaweed farm in Bali, Indonesia. According to one estimate, using just 3% of the Earth’s coastal waters to grow seaweed could produce 60 billion gallons of ethanol. Credit: Nikki McLeod/flickr.

The fact that a seaweed industry already exists is a major advantage, said Daniel Trunfio, chief executive at Bio Architecture Lab (BAL) in Berkeley, California, where the research was conducted. “People have been farming seaweed for 1,000 years. In China and Japan, you will see farms that are the equivalent of the midwest cornfields in the U.S.,” he said. “This can be a substantial addition to the fuel portfolio.” He argues that using 3% of the world’s coastal waters to grow seaweed would produce 60 billion gallons of ethanol — more than 40% of the fuel burned by U.S. cars and trucks. His company is backed by the U.S. Department of Energy, Norwegian oil company Statoil and the government of Chile, where BAL owns seaweed farms and is building a pilot plant.

One of the biggest barriers for seaweed-based fuel is the same as for other algae-based fuels: cost. Until researchers can figure out a way to farm, harvest and convert seaweed into ethanol more cheaply, ethanol made from corn or sugarcane will continue to prevail in the marketplace.

KQED Climate Watch, a Climate Central content partner.