Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Shell Builds Algae Biofuel Plant in Hawaii
=========================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ahSsmDmNPDXk&refer=uk
Shell, Biopetroleum to Build Algae Plant to Make Fuel (Update2)
By Eduard Gismatullin and Marianne Stigset
Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's largest oil company, and HR Biopetroleum will build an algae- growing plant in Hawaii to produce vegetable oil for biofuels.
The two companies have set up a joint venture, Cellana, to develop the project and will start by constructing a pilot facility, Shell said today in a statement. The partners say algae will absorb carbon dioxide, a gas blamed for global warming.
Algae ``can double their mass several times a day and produce at least 15 times more oil per hectare than alternatives such as rape, palm soya or jatropha,'' Shell said. It ``can be cultivated in ponds of seawater, minimizing the use of fertile land and fresh water.''
Shell said it may target the European Union market once production comes on stream in two years' time. The 27-nation bloc wants biofuels to make up an average 5.75 percent of transportation fuels by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020. Biofuels account for about 1 percent of EU fuel consumption today, according to Oxford, England-based charity Oxfam.
Algae can be used as a feedstock to make diesel-type fuels, Graeme Sweeney, Shell's executive vice president for future fuels, said. Transport-fuel demand will rise 45 percent from 2006 levels to more than 60 million barrels a day by 2030, with the share of biofuels expanding to 7 percent from 1 percent, according to the company.
Project Expansion
Shell, based in The Hague, plans to expand the 2.5-hectare (269,000 square foot) pilot project to a 1,000-hectare facility after two years and later to a ``full-scale commercial,'' 20,000- hectare plant, Sweeney said on a conference call with reporters. He declined to comment on planned investment.
Biodiesel constitutes 80 percent of EU biofuels, according to research company Frost & Sullivan Inc.
The algae project ``offers the opportunity in due course to meet the volume required in Europe,'' Sweeney said.
The seaweed is expected to produce 60 tons of oil per hectare, a ``conservative figure,'' according to Sweeney. That compares with an average of 4 tons of oil per hectare for jatropha.
Shell intends to produce ``very high grade diesel'' from the oil and is ``looking for routes to reach the higher end of the quality spectrum,'' Sweeney said of the so-called cold filter plugging point. The CFP shows the temperature at which oil freezes, which can be as high as 11 degrees Celsius (52 Fahrenheit) for palm oil.
=========================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ahSsmDmNPDXk&refer=uk
Shell, Biopetroleum to Build Algae Plant to Make Fuel (Update2)
By Eduard Gismatullin and Marianne Stigset
Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe's largest oil company, and HR Biopetroleum will build an algae- growing plant in Hawaii to produce vegetable oil for biofuels.
The two companies have set up a joint venture, Cellana, to develop the project and will start by constructing a pilot facility, Shell said today in a statement. The partners say algae will absorb carbon dioxide, a gas blamed for global warming.
Algae ``can double their mass several times a day and produce at least 15 times more oil per hectare than alternatives such as rape, palm soya or jatropha,'' Shell said. It ``can be cultivated in ponds of seawater, minimizing the use of fertile land and fresh water.''
Shell said it may target the European Union market once production comes on stream in two years' time. The 27-nation bloc wants biofuels to make up an average 5.75 percent of transportation fuels by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020. Biofuels account for about 1 percent of EU fuel consumption today, according to Oxford, England-based charity Oxfam.
Algae can be used as a feedstock to make diesel-type fuels, Graeme Sweeney, Shell's executive vice president for future fuels, said. Transport-fuel demand will rise 45 percent from 2006 levels to more than 60 million barrels a day by 2030, with the share of biofuels expanding to 7 percent from 1 percent, according to the company.
Project Expansion
Shell, based in The Hague, plans to expand the 2.5-hectare (269,000 square foot) pilot project to a 1,000-hectare facility after two years and later to a ``full-scale commercial,'' 20,000- hectare plant, Sweeney said on a conference call with reporters. He declined to comment on planned investment.
Biodiesel constitutes 80 percent of EU biofuels, according to research company Frost & Sullivan Inc.
The algae project ``offers the opportunity in due course to meet the volume required in Europe,'' Sweeney said.
The seaweed is expected to produce 60 tons of oil per hectare, a ``conservative figure,'' according to Sweeney. That compares with an average of 4 tons of oil per hectare for jatropha.
Shell intends to produce ``very high grade diesel'' from the oil and is ``looking for routes to reach the higher end of the quality spectrum,'' Sweeney said of the so-called cold filter plugging point. The CFP shows the temperature at which oil freezes, which can be as high as 11 degrees Celsius (52 Fahrenheit) for palm oil.
A Hail Mary Against Global Warming?
=====================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/02/geoengineering/print.html
The sun blotted out from the sky
Global warming demands more than do-gooder actions. It demands
"geoengineering" -- like blocking the sun's rays with stratospheric dirt.
By Elizabeth Svoboda
Apr. 02, 2008 | Gregory Benford thinks Al Gore's a good guy and all, but he
also thinks the star of "An Inconvenient Truth" is a little delusional.
Driving a hybrid car, switching your bulbs to compact fluorescents and
springing for recycled paper products are all well-meaning strategies in the
fight against global warming. But as UC-Irvine physicist Benford sees it,
there's a catch. Those do-gooder actions are not going to be effective
enough to turn the temperature tide, and even incremental political changes
like reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mining alternative fuel sources
are not forward-thinking enough. "I never believed we were going to be able
to thwart global warming through carbon restriction," Benford says. "Carbon
restriction requires nations to subvert short- and midterm goals for a
long-term goal they've read about online, and that's just not going to
work."
As an alternative, Benford has cooked up a plan that amounts to a manmade
Mount Pinatubo eruption. He has proposed shooting trillions of tiny
particles of earth into the stratosphere, where they will remain suspended
to help blot out incoming solar rays. Dirt is cheap, chemically unreactive
and easily crushable, he argues, making it a simple matter to test this
strategy on a small scale over the Arctic before total global deployment.
This plan might seem a little too sci-fi to take seriously -- fittingly,
Benford moonlights as a Nebula-winning novelist -- but he's far from the
only scientist to lobby for a so-called geoengineering fix.
Researchers all over the world have begun advocating large-scale climate
control strategies that sound like something "The Simpsons'" Mr. Burns might
endorse, including erecting sun-blocking mirrors in deep space, spraying
tiny droplets of sulfur or ocean water into the atmosphere to deflect
sunbeams, and seeding the oceans with iron to spur the growth of CO2-sucking
phytoplankton. When a panel of scientists addressed the ethical implications
of geoengineering at the annual American Association for the Advancement of
Science conference in February in Boston, it was a clear sign of how far
this seemingly out-there field has advanced toward legitimacy.
While no proposed geoengineering fixes have yet been tested on a global
scale, all of them have the irresistible lure of immediacy. Once deposited,
CO2 can linger in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, meaning it will
take decades or centuries for emissions-reduction policies to cool the
planet significantly. Geoengineering, on the other hand, could potentially
send global temperatures back to preindustrial levels within only a few
years, bringing the Arctic melt to a screeching halt and keeping extreme
weather patterns and rising sea levels associated with warming in check.
"Every simulation that's been done shows that geoengineering doesn't bring
the climate back perfectly," says Ken Caldeira, an ecologist at Stanford
University, "but you could put sulfur in the stratosphere right away and it
would be colder next year."
Hubristic to the nth degree? Riskier than a tightrope ballet? Absolutely.
Even geoengineering's proponents concede that. "The history of intervening
in complex systems to correct them is not good," says Caldeira, who has
cautiously endorsed future geoengineering research. "You always think you
know how the system's going to respond, but we should assume that if we
start doing this, there are going to be some ugly surprises."
While researchers can't predict the exact trajectory a geoengineering scheme
spiraling out of control would take, the scenarios they've proposed so far
are downright apocalyptic. "Aerosol clouds do block out the sun, but they
could also produce regional climate change and reduce the Asian monsoon
rains," says Alan Robock, an environmental scientist at Rutgers University.
"That would threaten water and food supply for billions of people."
Likewise, a poorly designed deep-space mirror could put swaths of the planet
in shade, devastating crops. Further, spraying too much sulfur into the
atmosphere could produce enough acid rain to decimate forests around the
world. Multiply the effects of every past human-intervention horror show,
from kudzu to Chernobyl to cane toads, by a thousand, and you begin to grasp
the potential fallout of a geoengineering venture gone bad.
But advocates contend that climate engineering -- despite its
Frankensteinian specter and attendant risks -- is far preferable to the
alternative: launching a suite of well-intentioned emissions-control
measures that go belly-up, allowing warming to proceed virtually unchecked.
"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going
to do anything but grow," says Pete Geddes, executive vice president of the
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment. "Most European
countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have,
it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this
notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure
fantasy."
To be sure, the degree of emissions control required to stave off warming's
worst effects will require almost monastic global discipline. A Geophysical
Research Letters paper published last year warned that if greenhouse gas
emissions are not curtailed to at least 60 percent below current levels by
2050, the world will see warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius within the
next century, enough to submerge low-lying coastal areas and drive polar
bears and Atlantic salmon to the brink of extinction. By comparison, Kyoto
Protocol targets -- which many countries are failing to hit -- require
participating nations to reduce emissions to at least 5 percent below 1990
levels by 2012. That's better than nothing, says Boston University visiting
law professor Jay Michaelson (who wrote a seminal geoengineering article for
the Stanford Environmental Law Journal), but it still doesn't make enough of
a dent in the problem. "Even with the most assertive emissions-reduction
targets, we're not talking about a real reduction in CO2 levels, we're
talking a reduction in the rate of growth," says Michaelson. "Either we have
to question the nature of industrial society, or we have to consider other
solutions."
Robock dismisses this as an overblown doomsday scenario; lowering
temperatures through emissions limits alone, he says, is still more than
feasible. "Every time a geoengineering proponent says reducing emissions is
impossible, that reduces the will of society to solve the problem."
But purely scientific disagreements about geoengineering are just the tip of
the melting iceberg. Questions of usefulness and necessity aside,
grand-scale sun-blocking schemes feel dubious in part because they challenge
our intuitive sense that large-scale wrongs can be atoned for only with
equally large-scale sacrifices. Drastic emissions cutbacks require drastic
lifestyle changes, like taking shorter showers and scrapping the Hummer.
Such changes feel right because they're a little painful; putting the
squeeze on ourselves is suitable penance for the collective sin of spewing
tailpipe fumes into the atmosphere for the past 100-plus years.
Geoengineering, by contrast, seems like an undeserved dispensation, a
free-lunch promise that technology can whitewash our past transgressions.
Let's go on a fossil fuel binge, never mind the CO2 hangover; scientists
will cure it by blotting out the light and fertilizing the oceans! "It's
like giving alcohol to a drunk; you've got a knife in your drawer so you can
put in a new liver if he ever needs it," said Dale Jamieson, director of
environmental studies at New York University, at February's AAAS conference.
Still, even the most skeptical scientists concede that it makes sense to
consider geoengineering as a last-ditch option, a kind of nuclear football
that can be deployed if warming becomes too dire -- if Manhattan threatens
to slip under the waves, say, or if the Fertile Crescent shows signs of
turning into a barren wasteland. "We need to do more research to figure out
whether geoengineering is possible in an emergency situation," Robock says.
Assuming for a moment the patient might need a new liver someday, who's
going to perform the transplant? Existing international laws could
complicate the procedure; a 1977 United Nations convention prohibits
countries from using environmental modification techniques that could have
"widespread, long-lasting or severe effects" on any other nation. That means
that if a government-funded geoengineering scheme has the potential to
disrupt global weather patterns, countries whose interests stand to be
affected could legitimately shut it down. And that's leaving aside the
thorny question of how to achieve climate-engineering consensus on a global
scale. "Whose hand would be on the thermostat?" Robock says. "What if India
wants it cooler and Russia wants it warmer?"
Which states emerge triumphant in squabbles like this may end up being a
moot point. The 1977 U.N. convention, like so many drafted during that era,
places no specific restrictions on the activities of private citizens. Since
geoengineering measures tend to be much more affordable than
emissions-reduction ones (dirt and sulfur aren't exactly hot commodities), a
future Bill Gates or Richard Branson could theoretically kick off an
artificial climate-cooling program with little or no input from the rest of
the world. "The cost to spray particles over the Arctic would be a couple
hundred million dollars a year; and for the whole planet, it's a few billion
a year," Benford says. "That's the thing that terrifies geoengineering's
opponents -- that this is at least a thousand times cheaper than anything
else." Indeed, the strategy's very accessibility may be what makes it the
most perilous. Who's to say some rogue entrepreneur, however well
intentioned, won't plunk down part of his multibillion-dollar nest egg to
send up a fleet of sulfur-spraying planes, putting the Northern Hemisphere
under a perpetual cloud and touching off other climatic consequences yet to
be foreseen?
Still, taking the giant -- and, in Benford's view, necessary -- global leap
of committing to geoengineering fixes may require private-sector
intervention, as no society today seems willing to put so much faith in a
single technological solution. "Everybody talks about [geoengineering] as
though it's a matter of mass action, but I don't think it is -- I don't
think it can be," Benford says. "The reason nothing's being done is that
governments are ever slower to act."
But putting our fate in the hands of a flash-in-the-pan environmental
dabbler with money to burn is especially risky given that adopting a
geoengineering venture would be like putting the planet on methadone. It
might save us from hitting climatic rock bottom, but it would also require
fastidious commitment to a treatment program with no real end in sight.
Whether any entity, commercial or governmental, would be able to carry out
the necessary upkeep for millenniums -- independent of regime changes,
cultural shifts and shadowy future catastrophes -- is still an open
question. "Only one or two organized bodies have been able to carry down
their traditions for a thousand years," Benford says. "It's a challenge for
our civilization. Future societies are going to have to place their trust in
a technological enterprise as they never have before."
But all that's far enough in the future that it still feels reassuringly
abstract. For now, geoengineering gurus like Benford are concentrating their
efforts on the most immediate task at hand: securing funding to test their
grandiose plans in the Arctic and other trial venues. It'll be an audition,
a chance for these off-off-Broadway productions to prove that they deserve a
place on the biggest stage of all -- and the results of the demo round could
help determine what life on this planet will be like for the next thousand
years. "Is geoengineering a pipe dream, or something that could actually
save the future of mankind?" Michaelson says. "We need to figure out which
one is true."
=====================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/02/geoengineering/print.html
The sun blotted out from the sky
Global warming demands more than do-gooder actions. It demands
"geoengineering" -- like blocking the sun's rays with stratospheric dirt.
By Elizabeth Svoboda
Apr. 02, 2008 | Gregory Benford thinks Al Gore's a good guy and all, but he
also thinks the star of "An Inconvenient Truth" is a little delusional.
Driving a hybrid car, switching your bulbs to compact fluorescents and
springing for recycled paper products are all well-meaning strategies in the
fight against global warming. But as UC-Irvine physicist Benford sees it,
there's a catch. Those do-gooder actions are not going to be effective
enough to turn the temperature tide, and even incremental political changes
like reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mining alternative fuel sources
are not forward-thinking enough. "I never believed we were going to be able
to thwart global warming through carbon restriction," Benford says. "Carbon
restriction requires nations to subvert short- and midterm goals for a
long-term goal they've read about online, and that's just not going to
work."
As an alternative, Benford has cooked up a plan that amounts to a manmade
Mount Pinatubo eruption. He has proposed shooting trillions of tiny
particles of earth into the stratosphere, where they will remain suspended
to help blot out incoming solar rays. Dirt is cheap, chemically unreactive
and easily crushable, he argues, making it a simple matter to test this
strategy on a small scale over the Arctic before total global deployment.
This plan might seem a little too sci-fi to take seriously -- fittingly,
Benford moonlights as a Nebula-winning novelist -- but he's far from the
only scientist to lobby for a so-called geoengineering fix.
Researchers all over the world have begun advocating large-scale climate
control strategies that sound like something "The Simpsons'" Mr. Burns might
endorse, including erecting sun-blocking mirrors in deep space, spraying
tiny droplets of sulfur or ocean water into the atmosphere to deflect
sunbeams, and seeding the oceans with iron to spur the growth of CO2-sucking
phytoplankton. When a panel of scientists addressed the ethical implications
of geoengineering at the annual American Association for the Advancement of
Science conference in February in Boston, it was a clear sign of how far
this seemingly out-there field has advanced toward legitimacy.
While no proposed geoengineering fixes have yet been tested on a global
scale, all of them have the irresistible lure of immediacy. Once deposited,
CO2 can linger in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, meaning it will
take decades or centuries for emissions-reduction policies to cool the
planet significantly. Geoengineering, on the other hand, could potentially
send global temperatures back to preindustrial levels within only a few
years, bringing the Arctic melt to a screeching halt and keeping extreme
weather patterns and rising sea levels associated with warming in check.
"Every simulation that's been done shows that geoengineering doesn't bring
the climate back perfectly," says Ken Caldeira, an ecologist at Stanford
University, "but you could put sulfur in the stratosphere right away and it
would be colder next year."
Hubristic to the nth degree? Riskier than a tightrope ballet? Absolutely.
Even geoengineering's proponents concede that. "The history of intervening
in complex systems to correct them is not good," says Caldeira, who has
cautiously endorsed future geoengineering research. "You always think you
know how the system's going to respond, but we should assume that if we
start doing this, there are going to be some ugly surprises."
While researchers can't predict the exact trajectory a geoengineering scheme
spiraling out of control would take, the scenarios they've proposed so far
are downright apocalyptic. "Aerosol clouds do block out the sun, but they
could also produce regional climate change and reduce the Asian monsoon
rains," says Alan Robock, an environmental scientist at Rutgers University.
"That would threaten water and food supply for billions of people."
Likewise, a poorly designed deep-space mirror could put swaths of the planet
in shade, devastating crops. Further, spraying too much sulfur into the
atmosphere could produce enough acid rain to decimate forests around the
world. Multiply the effects of every past human-intervention horror show,
from kudzu to Chernobyl to cane toads, by a thousand, and you begin to grasp
the potential fallout of a geoengineering venture gone bad.
But advocates contend that climate engineering -- despite its
Frankensteinian specter and attendant risks -- is far preferable to the
alternative: launching a suite of well-intentioned emissions-control
measures that go belly-up, allowing warming to proceed virtually unchecked.
"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going
to do anything but grow," says Pete Geddes, executive vice president of the
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment. "Most European
countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have,
it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this
notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure
fantasy."
To be sure, the degree of emissions control required to stave off warming's
worst effects will require almost monastic global discipline. A Geophysical
Research Letters paper published last year warned that if greenhouse gas
emissions are not curtailed to at least 60 percent below current levels by
2050, the world will see warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius within the
next century, enough to submerge low-lying coastal areas and drive polar
bears and Atlantic salmon to the brink of extinction. By comparison, Kyoto
Protocol targets -- which many countries are failing to hit -- require
participating nations to reduce emissions to at least 5 percent below 1990
levels by 2012. That's better than nothing, says Boston University visiting
law professor Jay Michaelson (who wrote a seminal geoengineering article for
the Stanford Environmental Law Journal), but it still doesn't make enough of
a dent in the problem. "Even with the most assertive emissions-reduction
targets, we're not talking about a real reduction in CO2 levels, we're
talking a reduction in the rate of growth," says Michaelson. "Either we have
to question the nature of industrial society, or we have to consider other
solutions."
Robock dismisses this as an overblown doomsday scenario; lowering
temperatures through emissions limits alone, he says, is still more than
feasible. "Every time a geoengineering proponent says reducing emissions is
impossible, that reduces the will of society to solve the problem."
But purely scientific disagreements about geoengineering are just the tip of
the melting iceberg. Questions of usefulness and necessity aside,
grand-scale sun-blocking schemes feel dubious in part because they challenge
our intuitive sense that large-scale wrongs can be atoned for only with
equally large-scale sacrifices. Drastic emissions cutbacks require drastic
lifestyle changes, like taking shorter showers and scrapping the Hummer.
Such changes feel right because they're a little painful; putting the
squeeze on ourselves is suitable penance for the collective sin of spewing
tailpipe fumes into the atmosphere for the past 100-plus years.
Geoengineering, by contrast, seems like an undeserved dispensation, a
free-lunch promise that technology can whitewash our past transgressions.
Let's go on a fossil fuel binge, never mind the CO2 hangover; scientists
will cure it by blotting out the light and fertilizing the oceans! "It's
like giving alcohol to a drunk; you've got a knife in your drawer so you can
put in a new liver if he ever needs it," said Dale Jamieson, director of
environmental studies at New York University, at February's AAAS conference.
Still, even the most skeptical scientists concede that it makes sense to
consider geoengineering as a last-ditch option, a kind of nuclear football
that can be deployed if warming becomes too dire -- if Manhattan threatens
to slip under the waves, say, or if the Fertile Crescent shows signs of
turning into a barren wasteland. "We need to do more research to figure out
whether geoengineering is possible in an emergency situation," Robock says.
Assuming for a moment the patient might need a new liver someday, who's
going to perform the transplant? Existing international laws could
complicate the procedure; a 1977 United Nations convention prohibits
countries from using environmental modification techniques that could have
"widespread, long-lasting or severe effects" on any other nation. That means
that if a government-funded geoengineering scheme has the potential to
disrupt global weather patterns, countries whose interests stand to be
affected could legitimately shut it down. And that's leaving aside the
thorny question of how to achieve climate-engineering consensus on a global
scale. "Whose hand would be on the thermostat?" Robock says. "What if India
wants it cooler and Russia wants it warmer?"
Which states emerge triumphant in squabbles like this may end up being a
moot point. The 1977 U.N. convention, like so many drafted during that era,
places no specific restrictions on the activities of private citizens. Since
geoengineering measures tend to be much more affordable than
emissions-reduction ones (dirt and sulfur aren't exactly hot commodities), a
future Bill Gates or Richard Branson could theoretically kick off an
artificial climate-cooling program with little or no input from the rest of
the world. "The cost to spray particles over the Arctic would be a couple
hundred million dollars a year; and for the whole planet, it's a few billion
a year," Benford says. "That's the thing that terrifies geoengineering's
opponents -- that this is at least a thousand times cheaper than anything
else." Indeed, the strategy's very accessibility may be what makes it the
most perilous. Who's to say some rogue entrepreneur, however well
intentioned, won't plunk down part of his multibillion-dollar nest egg to
send up a fleet of sulfur-spraying planes, putting the Northern Hemisphere
under a perpetual cloud and touching off other climatic consequences yet to
be foreseen?
Still, taking the giant -- and, in Benford's view, necessary -- global leap
of committing to geoengineering fixes may require private-sector
intervention, as no society today seems willing to put so much faith in a
single technological solution. "Everybody talks about [geoengineering] as
though it's a matter of mass action, but I don't think it is -- I don't
think it can be," Benford says. "The reason nothing's being done is that
governments are ever slower to act."
But putting our fate in the hands of a flash-in-the-pan environmental
dabbler with money to burn is especially risky given that adopting a
geoengineering venture would be like putting the planet on methadone. It
might save us from hitting climatic rock bottom, but it would also require
fastidious commitment to a treatment program with no real end in sight.
Whether any entity, commercial or governmental, would be able to carry out
the necessary upkeep for millenniums -- independent of regime changes,
cultural shifts and shadowy future catastrophes -- is still an open
question. "Only one or two organized bodies have been able to carry down
their traditions for a thousand years," Benford says. "It's a challenge for
our civilization. Future societies are going to have to place their trust in
a technological enterprise as they never have before."
But all that's far enough in the future that it still feels reassuringly
abstract. For now, geoengineering gurus like Benford are concentrating their
efforts on the most immediate task at hand: securing funding to test their
grandiose plans in the Arctic and other trial venues. It'll be an audition,
a chance for these off-off-Broadway productions to prove that they deserve a
place on the biggest stage of all -- and the results of the demo round could
help determine what life on this planet will be like for the next thousand
years. "Is geoengineering a pipe dream, or something that could actually
save the future of mankind?" Michaelson says. "We need to figure out which
one is true."
Monday, March 17, 2008
The ICC the mark of a self-destructive society
====================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.rockvillecentral.com/2008/02/contributor-opinion-by-carl-hennbig.html
Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn:Big Stone Heads
The following contributor opinion is by Carl Henn:
Perhaps you’ve heard the cautionary tale of Easter Island. Easter Island is the windswept, grassy island over 2,000 miles off the coast of Chile with the enormous stone heads. For years it was a mystery how they could have been carved, transported and erected on an island that had no trees for rollers or cranes and no decent plant material for strong ropes. People even hypothesized that aliens had built them, since it seemed impossible for the small, Stone Age human population there to have built so many fabulous monuments.
Modern investigations have solved the mystery. Easter Island was once as heavily wooded as Hawaii, as shown by pollen spores found in core samples of the island’s crater lake. The trees could provide rollers, skid roads and cranes, and other trees provided fine fiber for strong ropes. A count of the many ancient foundations of homes long since rotted away show that the island once supported thousands of people rather than the straggly few hundred that were there when they were "discovered" on Easter Sunday, 1722.
How did the island wind up with lots of heads and no trees?
They had cut down all the trees to make big heads. The trees that once allowed them to make big heads also provided shelter and fuel. Without them, they had to move into caves for shelter. The trees had provided seagoing canoes that allowed fishing to bring in protein from the sea. Trees had provided edible seeds as well that were lost to them when they cut the last nut tree. Trees also captured rainfall and charged the aquifers that provided fresh water. Without trees, the people went hungry. Easter Island went through a period of warfare, cannibalism and starvation as the once large population collapsed.
Not too bright, these Easter Islanders, eh? Well, they were every bit as bright as we are. We too are building big stone heads while undermining the resources that support us.
Our big stone heads are highways. We are burning the one time inheritance of fossil fuels in one big fiesta, supporting an ever larger population using oil to plow, plant, fertilize, harvest and process our food. We are building roads, parking lots, houses and shopping malls on some of the nation’s richest farm land. Like the Easter Islanders, a day will come when we realize that big stone heads can’t feed us.
Oil is finite and runs out as we use it. Oil experts believe we are now at or near the peak of global oil production. It will soon enter its inevitable decline. We will need to reduce our demand greatly. We should use the last of our oil to build a sustainable energy infrastructure, not to support one more round of sprawl. (Come to one of my energy talks to hear more about how we can get from where we are to where we need to be.)
The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. We are spending our limited transportation dollars on highways rather than more efficient transit, our own way of building big heads – infrastructure that will soon be worse than worthless. At least the big heads are interesting to look at. Highways are uglier than what they replace. Destroying forests, farms and wetlands with borrowed billions makes no sense.
Here is our biggest proposed stone head – The Intercounty Connector:
The ICC was estimated to cost $2.4 billion dollars in 2004. Since then the cost of oil, steel, concrete and asphalt have all increased markedly, yet the official estimate remains $2.4 billion. We are being lied to about its cost.
Underestimated at $2.4 billion, it costs too much. While this road literally bulldozes forward, the Purple Line limps forward with barely enough funds for planning, and the Corridor Cities Transitway is nothing but a dream. The ICC stole its lunch money.
Even if we magically found an answer to our energy problems tomorrow, the ICC wouldn’t make sense. It is projected to trigger another 5 to 20 thousand acres of additional sprawl and to increase traffic on segments of the Beltway, I-95 and I-270. It would undercut existing businesses in Silver Spring and Wheaton by funneling customers to the new regional Konterra Mall to be built where the ICC would meet I-95.
But we have no magic energy answer. Our cars run on gasoline and cause global warming, smog and acid rain. We can’t reduce our global warming impact by spending billions to move in the wrong direction.
The ICC was planned for a world with no energy problems. The ICC study assumed that oil would cost the same in 2025 as it cost in 2004. That has already proven wrong. Oil cost $40 a barrel in 2004 and $100 a barrel today. The ICC was intended to support ever growing traffic. But in response to rising oil prices, vehicle miles traveled have been in decline for two years.
The ICC can still be stopped. The General Assembly will soon vote on three bills regarding the ICC. HB 1471, with 40 co-sponsors, would repeal the ICC’s funding package, freeing $2 billion dollars for other projects. HB 1416 would block further expenditures until the highway’s impact on global warming is assessed. This was never done in the Environmental Impact Statement process. And a third bill would require the state to assess the public health impacts of the ICC on air pollution before spending more money.
Our District 17 Delegates and Senator aren’t cosponsors of these bills. In fact they are all ICC supporters. It’s time for them to wake up and smell the coffee. If they understood peak oil, they wouldn’t support this road. All our District 17 representatives have cosponsored the Global Warming Solutions Act. If they truly care about global warming, they would vote against the ICC.
Please let them know where you stand. Here is their contact information.
The biggest supporter of the ICC today is Governor O’Malley, who claims to care deeply about the environment and global warming. Ask him to connect the dots and drop the ICC. You can e-mail him through the form here.
The stakes really couldn’t be much higher. Please contact your Maryland representatives and urge them to vote for the bills to stop the ICC. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Carl Henn
Hungerford
Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us
====================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.rockvillecentral.com/2008/02/contributor-opinion-by-carl-hennbig.html
Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn:Big Stone Heads
The following contributor opinion is by Carl Henn:
Perhaps you’ve heard the cautionary tale of Easter Island. Easter Island is the windswept, grassy island over 2,000 miles off the coast of Chile with the enormous stone heads. For years it was a mystery how they could have been carved, transported and erected on an island that had no trees for rollers or cranes and no decent plant material for strong ropes. People even hypothesized that aliens had built them, since it seemed impossible for the small, Stone Age human population there to have built so many fabulous monuments.
Modern investigations have solved the mystery. Easter Island was once as heavily wooded as Hawaii, as shown by pollen spores found in core samples of the island’s crater lake. The trees could provide rollers, skid roads and cranes, and other trees provided fine fiber for strong ropes. A count of the many ancient foundations of homes long since rotted away show that the island once supported thousands of people rather than the straggly few hundred that were there when they were "discovered" on Easter Sunday, 1722.
How did the island wind up with lots of heads and no trees?
They had cut down all the trees to make big heads. The trees that once allowed them to make big heads also provided shelter and fuel. Without them, they had to move into caves for shelter. The trees had provided seagoing canoes that allowed fishing to bring in protein from the sea. Trees had provided edible seeds as well that were lost to them when they cut the last nut tree. Trees also captured rainfall and charged the aquifers that provided fresh water. Without trees, the people went hungry. Easter Island went through a period of warfare, cannibalism and starvation as the once large population collapsed.
Not too bright, these Easter Islanders, eh? Well, they were every bit as bright as we are. We too are building big stone heads while undermining the resources that support us.
Our big stone heads are highways. We are burning the one time inheritance of fossil fuels in one big fiesta, supporting an ever larger population using oil to plow, plant, fertilize, harvest and process our food. We are building roads, parking lots, houses and shopping malls on some of the nation’s richest farm land. Like the Easter Islanders, a day will come when we realize that big stone heads can’t feed us.
Oil is finite and runs out as we use it. Oil experts believe we are now at or near the peak of global oil production. It will soon enter its inevitable decline. We will need to reduce our demand greatly. We should use the last of our oil to build a sustainable energy infrastructure, not to support one more round of sprawl. (Come to one of my energy talks to hear more about how we can get from where we are to where we need to be.)
The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. We are spending our limited transportation dollars on highways rather than more efficient transit, our own way of building big heads – infrastructure that will soon be worse than worthless. At least the big heads are interesting to look at. Highways are uglier than what they replace. Destroying forests, farms and wetlands with borrowed billions makes no sense.
Here is our biggest proposed stone head – The Intercounty Connector:
The ICC was estimated to cost $2.4 billion dollars in 2004. Since then the cost of oil, steel, concrete and asphalt have all increased markedly, yet the official estimate remains $2.4 billion. We are being lied to about its cost.
Underestimated at $2.4 billion, it costs too much. While this road literally bulldozes forward, the Purple Line limps forward with barely enough funds for planning, and the Corridor Cities Transitway is nothing but a dream. The ICC stole its lunch money.
Even if we magically found an answer to our energy problems tomorrow, the ICC wouldn’t make sense. It is projected to trigger another 5 to 20 thousand acres of additional sprawl and to increase traffic on segments of the Beltway, I-95 and I-270. It would undercut existing businesses in Silver Spring and Wheaton by funneling customers to the new regional Konterra Mall to be built where the ICC would meet I-95.
But we have no magic energy answer. Our cars run on gasoline and cause global warming, smog and acid rain. We can’t reduce our global warming impact by spending billions to move in the wrong direction.
The ICC was planned for a world with no energy problems. The ICC study assumed that oil would cost the same in 2025 as it cost in 2004. That has already proven wrong. Oil cost $40 a barrel in 2004 and $100 a barrel today. The ICC was intended to support ever growing traffic. But in response to rising oil prices, vehicle miles traveled have been in decline for two years.
The ICC can still be stopped. The General Assembly will soon vote on three bills regarding the ICC. HB 1471, with 40 co-sponsors, would repeal the ICC’s funding package, freeing $2 billion dollars for other projects. HB 1416 would block further expenditures until the highway’s impact on global warming is assessed. This was never done in the Environmental Impact Statement process. And a third bill would require the state to assess the public health impacts of the ICC on air pollution before spending more money.
Our District 17 Delegates and Senator aren’t cosponsors of these bills. In fact they are all ICC supporters. It’s time for them to wake up and smell the coffee. If they understood peak oil, they wouldn’t support this road. All our District 17 representatives have cosponsored the Global Warming Solutions Act. If they truly care about global warming, they would vote against the ICC.
Please let them know where you stand. Here is their contact information.
The biggest supporter of the ICC today is Governor O’Malley, who claims to care deeply about the environment and global warming. Ask him to connect the dots and drop the ICC. You can e-mail him through the form here.
The stakes really couldn’t be much higher. Please contact your Maryland representatives and urge them to vote for the bills to stop the ICC. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Carl Henn
Hungerford
Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us
The truth about recycling
======================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9249262
As the importance of recycling becomes more apparent, questions about it linger. Is it worth the effort? How does it work? Is recycling waste just going into a landfill in China? Here are some answers
IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.
Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. “We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds?” says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.
Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.
Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads. Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.
Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. “If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,” says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.
Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.
A brief history of recycling
The virtue of recycling has been appreciated for centuries. For thousands of years metal items have been recycled by melting and reforming them into new weapons or tools. It is said that the broken pieces of the Colossus of Rhodes, a statue deemed one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, were recycled for scrap. During the industrial revolution, recyclers began to form businesses and later trade associations, dealing in the collection, trade and processing of metals and paper. America's Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), a trade association with more than 1,400 member companies, traces its roots back to one such organisation founded in 1913. In the 1930s many people survived the Great Depression by peddling scraps of metal, rags and other items. In those days reuse and recycling were often economic necessities. Recycling also played an important role during the second world war, when scrap metal was turned into weapons.
As industrial societies began to produce ever-growing quantities of garbage, recycling took on a new meaning. Rather than recycling materials for purely economic reasons, communities began to think about how to reduce the waste flow to landfills and incinerators. Around 1970 the environmental movement sparked the creation of America's first kerbside collection schemes, though it was another 20 years before such programmes really took off.
In 1991 Germany made history when it passed an ordinance shifting responsibility for the entire life cycle of packaging to producers. In response, the industry created Duales System Deutschland (DSD), a company that organises a separate waste-management system that exists alongside public rubbish-collection. By charging a licensing fee for its “green dot” trademark, DSD pays for the collection, sorting and recycling of packaging materials. Although the system turned out to be expensive, it has been highly influential. Many European countries later adopted their own recycling initiatives incorporating some degree of producer responsibility.
In 1987 a rubbish-laden barge cruised up and down America's East Coast looking for a place to unload, sparking a public discussion about waste management and serving as a catalyst for the country's growing recycling movement. By the early 1990s so many American cities had established recycling programmes that the resulting glut of materials caused the market price for kerbside recyclables to fall from around $50 per ton to about $30, says Dr Morris, who has been tracking prices for recyclables in the Pacific Northwest since the mid-1980s. As with all commodities, costs for recyclables fluctuate. But the average price for kerbside materials has since slowly increased to about $90 per ton.
Even so, most kerbside recycling programmes are not financially self-sustaining. The cost of collecting, transporting and sorting materials generally exceeds the revenues generated by selling the recyclables, and is also greater than the disposal costs. Exceptions do exist, says Dr Morris, largely near ports in dense urban areas that charge high fees for landfill disposal and enjoy good market conditions for the sale of recyclables.
Sorting things out
Originally kerbside programmes asked people to put paper, glass and cans into separate bins. But now the trend is toward co-mingled or “single stream” collection. About 700 of America's 10,000 kerbside programmes now use this approach, says Kate Krebs, executive director of America's National Recycling Coalition. But the switch can make people suspicious: if there is no longer any need to separate different materials, people may conclude that the waste is simply being buried or burned. In fact, the switch towards single-stream collection is being driven by new technologies that can identify and sort the various materials with little or no human intervention. Single-stream collection makes it more convenient for householders to recycle, and means that more materials are diverted from the waste stream.
San Francisco, which changed from multi to single-stream collection a few years ago, now boasts a recycling rate of 69%—one of the highest in America. With the exception of garden and food waste, all the city's kerbside recyclables are sorted in a 200,000-square-foot facility that combines machines with the manpower of 155 employees. The $38m plant, next to the San Francisco Bay, opened in 2003. Operated by Norcal Waste Systems, it processes an average of 750 tons of paper, plastic, glass and metals a day.
The process begins when a truck arrives and dumps its load of recyclables at one end of the building. The materials are then piled on to large conveyer belts that transport them to a manual sorting station. There, workers sift through everything, taking out plastic bags, large pieces of cardboard and other items that could damage or obstruct the sorting machines. Plastic bags are especially troublesome as they tend to get caught in the spinning-disk screens that send weightier materials, such as bottles and cans, down in one direction and the paper up in another.
Corrugated cardboard is separated from mixed paper, both of which are then baled and sold. Plastic bottles and cartons are plucked out by hand. The most common types, PET (type 1) and HDPE (type 2), are collected separately; the rest go into a mixed-plastics bin.
Next, a magnet pulls out any ferrous metals, typically tin-plated or steel cans, while the non-ferrous metals, mostly aluminium cans, are ejected by eddy current. Eddy-current separators, in use since the early 1990s, consist of a rapidly revolving magnetic rotor inside a long, cylindrical drum that rotates at a slower speed. As the aluminium cans are carried over this drum by a conveyer belt, the magnetic field from the rotor induces circulating electric currents, called eddy currents, within them. This creates a secondary magnetic field around the cans that is repelled by the magnetic field of the rotor, literally ejecting the aluminium cans from the other waste materials.
Finally, the glass is separated by hand into clear, brown, amber and green glass. For each load, the entire sorting process from start to finish takes about an hour, says Bob Besso, Norcal's recycling-programme manager for San Francisco.
Although all recycling facilities still employ people, investment is increasing in optical sorting technologies that can separate different types of paper and plastic. Development of the first near-infra-red-based waste-sorting systems began in the early 1990s. At the time Elopak, a Norwegian producer of drink cartons made of plastic-laminated cardboard, worried that it would have to pay a considerable fee to meet its producer responsibilities in Germany and other European countries. To reduce the overall life-cycle costs associated with its products, Elopak set out to find a way to automate the sorting of its cartons. The company teamed up with SINTEF, a Norwegian research centre, and in 1996 sold its first unit in Germany. The technology was later spun off into a company now called TiTech.
TiTech's systems—more than 1,000 of which are now installed worldwide—rely on spectroscopy to identify different materials. Paper and plastic items are spread out on a conveyor belt in a single layer. When illuminated by a halogen lamp, each type of material reflects a unique combination of wavelengths in the infra-red spectrum that can be identified, much like a fingerprint. By analysing data from a sensor that detects light in both the visible and the near-infra-red spectrum, a computer is able to determine the colour, type, shape and position of each item. Air jets are then activated to push particular items from one conveyor belt to another, or into a bin. Numerous types of paper, plastic or combinations thereof can thus be sorted with up to 98% accuracy.
For many materials the process of turning them back into useful raw materials is straightforward: metals are shredded into pieces, paper is reduced to pulp and glass is crushed into cullet. Metals and glass can be remelted almost indefinitely without any loss in quality, while paper can be recycled up to six times. (As it goes through the process, its fibres get shorter and the quality deteriorates.)
Plastics, which are made from fossil fuels, are somewhat different. Although they have many useful properties—they are flexible, lightweight and can be shaped into any form—there are many different types, most of which need to be processed separately. In 2005 less than 6% of the plastic from America's municipal waste stream was recovered. And of that small fraction, the only two types recycled in significant quantities were PET and HDPE. For PET, food-grade bottle-to-bottle recycling exists. But plastic is often “down-cycled” into other products such as plastic lumber (used in place of wood), drain pipes and carpet fibres, which tend to end up in landfills or incinerators at the end of their useful lives.
Even so, plastics are being used more and more, not just for packaging, but also in consumer goods such as cars, televisions and personal computers. Because such products are made of a variety of materials and can contain multiple types of plastic, metals (some of them toxic), and glass, they are especially difficult and expensive to dismantle and recycle.
Europe and Japan have initiated “take back” laws that require electronics manufacturers to recycle their products. But in America only a handful of states have passed such legislation. That has caused problems for companies that specialise in recycling plastics from complex waste streams and depend on take-back laws for getting the necessary feedstock. Michael Biddle, the boss of MBA Polymers, says the lack of such laws is one of the reasons why his company operates only a pilot plant in America and has its main facilities in China and Austria.
Much recyclable material can be processed locally, but ever more is being shipped to developing nations, especially China. The country has a large appetite for raw materials and that includes scrap metals, waste paper and plastics, all of which can be cheaper than virgin materials. In most cases, these waste materials are recycled into consumer goods or packaging and returned to Europe and America via container ships. With its hunger for resources and the availability of cheap labour, China has become the largest importer of recyclable materials in the world.
The China question
But the practice of shipping recyclables to China is controversial. Especially in Britain, politicians have voiced the concern that some of those exports may end up in landfills. Many experts disagree. According to Pieter van Beukering, an economist who has studied the trade of waste paper to India and waste plastics to China: “as soon as somebody is paying for the material, you bet it will be recycled.”
In fact, Dr van Beukering argues that by importing waste materials, recycling firms in developing countries are able to build larger factories and achieve economies of scale, recycling materials more efficiently and at lower environmental cost. He has witnessed as much in India, he says, where dozens of inefficient, polluting paper mills near Mumbai were transformed into a smaller number of far more productive and environmentally friendly factories within a few years.
Still, compared with Western countries, factories in developing nations may be less tightly regulated, and the recycling industry is no exception. China especially has been plagued by countless illegal-waste imports, many of which are processed by poor migrants in China's coastal regions. They dismantle and recycle anything from plastic to electronic waste without any protection for themselves or the environment.
The Chinese government has banned such practices, but migrant workers have spawned a mobile cottage industry that is difficult to wipe out, says Aya Yoshida, a researcher at Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies who has studied Chinese waste imports and recycling practices. Because this type of industry operates largely under the radar, it is difficult to assess its overall impact. But it is clear that processing plastic and electronic waste in a crude manner releases toxic chemicals, harming people and the environment—the opposite of what recycling is supposed to achieve.
Under pressure from environmental groups, such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, some computer-makers have established rules to ensure that their products are recycled in a responsible way. Hewlett-Packard has been a leader in this and even operates its own recycling factories in California and Tennessee. Dell, which was once criticised for using prison labour to recycle its machines, now takes back its old computers for no charge. And last month Steve Jobs detailed Apple's plans to eliminate the use of toxic substances in its products.
Far less controversial is the recycling of glass—except, that is, in places where there is no market for it. Britain, for example, is struggling with a mountain of green glass. It is the largest importer of wine in the world, bringing in more than 1 billion litres every year, much of it in green glass bottles. But with only a tiny wine industry of its own, there is little demand for the resulting glass. Instead what is needed is clear glass, which is turned into bottles for spirits, and often exported to other countries. As a result, says Andy Dawe, WRAP's glass-technology manager, Britain is in the “peculiar situation” of having more green glass than it has production capacity for.
Britain's bottle-makers already use as much recycled green glass as they can in their furnaces to produce new bottles. So some of the surplus glass is down-cycled into construction aggregates or sand for filtration systems. But WRAP's own analysis reveals that the energy savings for both appear to be “marginal or even disadvantageous”. Working with industry, WRAP has started a new programme called GlassRite Wine, in an effort to right the imbalance. Instead of being bottled at source, some wine is now imported in 24,000-litre containers and then bottled in Britain. This may dismay some wine connoisseurs, but it solves two problems, says Mr Dawe: it reduces the amount of green glass that is imported and puts what is imported to good use. It can also cut shipping costs by up to 40%.
The future of recycling
This is an unusual case, however. More generally, one of the biggest barriers to more efficient recycling is that most products were not designed with recycling in mind. Remedying this problem may require a complete rethinking of industrial processes, says William McDonough, an architect and the co-author of a book published in 2002 called “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things”. Along with Michael Braungart, his fellow author and a chemist, he lays out a vision for establishing “closed-loop” cycles where there is no waste. Recycling should be taken into account at the design stage, they argue, and all materials should either be able to return to the soil safely or be recycled indefinitely. This may sound like wishful thinking, but Mr McDonough has a good pedigree. Over the years he has worked with companies including Ford and Google.
An outgrowth of “Cradle to Cradle” is the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a non-profit working group that has developed guidelines that look beyond the traditional benchmarks of packaging design to emphasise the use of renewable, recycled and non-toxic source materials, among other things. Founded in 2003 with just nine members, the group now boasts nearly 100 members, including Target, Starbucks and Estée Lauder, some of which have already begun to change the design of their packaging.
Sustainable packaging not only benefits the environment but can also cut costs. Last year Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, announced that it wanted to reduce the amount of packaging it uses by 5% by 2013, which could save the company as much as $3.4 billion and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 667,000 tonnes. As well as trying to reduce the amount of packaging, Wal-Mart also wants to recycle more of it. Two years ago the company began to use an unusual process, called the “sandwich bale”, to collect waste material at its stores and distribution centres for recycling. It involves putting a layer of cardboard at the bottom of a rubbish compactor before filling it with waste material, and then putting another layer of cardboard on top. The compactor then produces a “sandwich” which is easier to handle and transport, says Jeff Ashby of Rocky Mountain Recycling, who invented the process for Wal-Mart. As well as avoiding disposal costs for materials it previously sent to landfill, the company now makes money by selling waste at market prices.
EPA
EPA
It does get recycled, honest
Evidently there is plenty of scope for further innovation in recycling. New ideas and approaches will be needed, since many communities and organisations have set high targets for recycling. Europe's packaging directive requires member states to recycle 60% of their glass and paper, 50% of metals and 22.5% of plastic packaging by the end of 2008. Earlier this year the European Parliament voted to increase recycling rates by 2020 to 50% of municipal waste and 70% of industrial waste. Recycling rates can be boosted by charging households and businesses more if they produce more rubbish, and by reducing the frequency of rubbish collections while increasing that of recycling collections.
Meanwhile a number of cities and firms (including Wal-Mart, Toyota and Nike) have adopted zero-waste targets. This may be unrealistic but Matt Hale, director of the office of solid waste at America's Environmental Protection Agency, says it is a worthy goal and can help companies think about better ways to manage materials. It forces people to look at the entire life-cycle of a product, says Dr Hale, and ask questions: Can you reduce the amount of material to begin with? Can you design the product to make recycling easier?
If done right, there is no doubt that recycling saves energy and raw materials, and reduces pollution. But as well as trying to recycle more, it is also important to try to recycle better. As technologies and materials evolve, there is room for improvement and cause for optimism. In the end, says Ms Krebs, “waste is really a design flaw.”
======================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9249262
As the importance of recycling becomes more apparent, questions about it linger. Is it worth the effort? How does it work? Is recycling waste just going into a landfill in China? Here are some answers
IT IS an awful lot of rubbish. Since 1960 the amount of municipal waste being collected in America has nearly tripled, reaching 245m tonnes in 2005. According to European Union statistics, the amount of municipal waste produced in western Europe increased by 23% between 1995 and 2003, to reach 577kg per person. (So much for the plan to reduce waste per person to 300kg by 2000.) As the volume of waste has increased, so have recycling efforts. In 1980 America recycled only 9.6% of its municipal rubbish; today the rate stands at 32%. A similar trend can be seen in Europe, where some countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands, now recycle 60% or more of their municipal waste. Britain's recycling rate, at 27%, is low, but it is improving fast, having nearly doubled in the past three years.
Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves. “We are constantly being asked: Is recycling worth doing on environmental grounds?” says Julian Parfitt, principal analyst at Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a non-profit British company that encourages recycling and develops markets for recycled materials.
Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.
Based on this study, WRAP calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads. Similarly, America's Environmental Protection Agency estimates that recycling reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49m tonnes in 2005.
Recycling has many other benefits, too. It conserves natural resources. It also reduces the amount of waste that is buried or burnt, hardly ideal ways to get rid of the stuff. (Landfills take up valuable space and emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and although incinerators are not as polluting as they once were, they still produce noxious emissions, so people dislike having them around.) But perhaps the most valuable benefit of recycling is the saving in energy and the reduction in greenhouse gases and pollution that result when scrap materials are substituted for virgin feedstock. “If you can use recycled materials, you don't have to mine ores, cut trees and drill for oil as much,” says Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management, a consulting firm based in Olympia, Washington.
Extracting metals from ore, in particular, is extremely energy-intensive. Recycling aluminium, for example, can reduce energy consumption by as much as 95%. Savings for other materials are lower but still substantial: about 70% for plastics, 60% for steel, 40% for paper and 30% for glass. Recycling also reduces emissions of pollutants that can cause smog, acid rain and the contamination of waterways.
A brief history of recycling
The virtue of recycling has been appreciated for centuries. For thousands of years metal items have been recycled by melting and reforming them into new weapons or tools. It is said that the broken pieces of the Colossus of Rhodes, a statue deemed one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, were recycled for scrap. During the industrial revolution, recyclers began to form businesses and later trade associations, dealing in the collection, trade and processing of metals and paper. America's Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), a trade association with more than 1,400 member companies, traces its roots back to one such organisation founded in 1913. In the 1930s many people survived the Great Depression by peddling scraps of metal, rags and other items. In those days reuse and recycling were often economic necessities. Recycling also played an important role during the second world war, when scrap metal was turned into weapons.
As industrial societies began to produce ever-growing quantities of garbage, recycling took on a new meaning. Rather than recycling materials for purely economic reasons, communities began to think about how to reduce the waste flow to landfills and incinerators. Around 1970 the environmental movement sparked the creation of America's first kerbside collection schemes, though it was another 20 years before such programmes really took off.
In 1991 Germany made history when it passed an ordinance shifting responsibility for the entire life cycle of packaging to producers. In response, the industry created Duales System Deutschland (DSD), a company that organises a separate waste-management system that exists alongside public rubbish-collection. By charging a licensing fee for its “green dot” trademark, DSD pays for the collection, sorting and recycling of packaging materials. Although the system turned out to be expensive, it has been highly influential. Many European countries later adopted their own recycling initiatives incorporating some degree of producer responsibility.
In 1987 a rubbish-laden barge cruised up and down America's East Coast looking for a place to unload, sparking a public discussion about waste management and serving as a catalyst for the country's growing recycling movement. By the early 1990s so many American cities had established recycling programmes that the resulting glut of materials caused the market price for kerbside recyclables to fall from around $50 per ton to about $30, says Dr Morris, who has been tracking prices for recyclables in the Pacific Northwest since the mid-1980s. As with all commodities, costs for recyclables fluctuate. But the average price for kerbside materials has since slowly increased to about $90 per ton.
Even so, most kerbside recycling programmes are not financially self-sustaining. The cost of collecting, transporting and sorting materials generally exceeds the revenues generated by selling the recyclables, and is also greater than the disposal costs. Exceptions do exist, says Dr Morris, largely near ports in dense urban areas that charge high fees for landfill disposal and enjoy good market conditions for the sale of recyclables.
Sorting things out
Originally kerbside programmes asked people to put paper, glass and cans into separate bins. But now the trend is toward co-mingled or “single stream” collection. About 700 of America's 10,000 kerbside programmes now use this approach, says Kate Krebs, executive director of America's National Recycling Coalition. But the switch can make people suspicious: if there is no longer any need to separate different materials, people may conclude that the waste is simply being buried or burned. In fact, the switch towards single-stream collection is being driven by new technologies that can identify and sort the various materials with little or no human intervention. Single-stream collection makes it more convenient for householders to recycle, and means that more materials are diverted from the waste stream.
San Francisco, which changed from multi to single-stream collection a few years ago, now boasts a recycling rate of 69%—one of the highest in America. With the exception of garden and food waste, all the city's kerbside recyclables are sorted in a 200,000-square-foot facility that combines machines with the manpower of 155 employees. The $38m plant, next to the San Francisco Bay, opened in 2003. Operated by Norcal Waste Systems, it processes an average of 750 tons of paper, plastic, glass and metals a day.
The process begins when a truck arrives and dumps its load of recyclables at one end of the building. The materials are then piled on to large conveyer belts that transport them to a manual sorting station. There, workers sift through everything, taking out plastic bags, large pieces of cardboard and other items that could damage or obstruct the sorting machines. Plastic bags are especially troublesome as they tend to get caught in the spinning-disk screens that send weightier materials, such as bottles and cans, down in one direction and the paper up in another.
Corrugated cardboard is separated from mixed paper, both of which are then baled and sold. Plastic bottles and cartons are plucked out by hand. The most common types, PET (type 1) and HDPE (type 2), are collected separately; the rest go into a mixed-plastics bin.
Next, a magnet pulls out any ferrous metals, typically tin-plated or steel cans, while the non-ferrous metals, mostly aluminium cans, are ejected by eddy current. Eddy-current separators, in use since the early 1990s, consist of a rapidly revolving magnetic rotor inside a long, cylindrical drum that rotates at a slower speed. As the aluminium cans are carried over this drum by a conveyer belt, the magnetic field from the rotor induces circulating electric currents, called eddy currents, within them. This creates a secondary magnetic field around the cans that is repelled by the magnetic field of the rotor, literally ejecting the aluminium cans from the other waste materials.
Finally, the glass is separated by hand into clear, brown, amber and green glass. For each load, the entire sorting process from start to finish takes about an hour, says Bob Besso, Norcal's recycling-programme manager for San Francisco.
Although all recycling facilities still employ people, investment is increasing in optical sorting technologies that can separate different types of paper and plastic. Development of the first near-infra-red-based waste-sorting systems began in the early 1990s. At the time Elopak, a Norwegian producer of drink cartons made of plastic-laminated cardboard, worried that it would have to pay a considerable fee to meet its producer responsibilities in Germany and other European countries. To reduce the overall life-cycle costs associated with its products, Elopak set out to find a way to automate the sorting of its cartons. The company teamed up with SINTEF, a Norwegian research centre, and in 1996 sold its first unit in Germany. The technology was later spun off into a company now called TiTech.
TiTech's systems—more than 1,000 of which are now installed worldwide—rely on spectroscopy to identify different materials. Paper and plastic items are spread out on a conveyor belt in a single layer. When illuminated by a halogen lamp, each type of material reflects a unique combination of wavelengths in the infra-red spectrum that can be identified, much like a fingerprint. By analysing data from a sensor that detects light in both the visible and the near-infra-red spectrum, a computer is able to determine the colour, type, shape and position of each item. Air jets are then activated to push particular items from one conveyor belt to another, or into a bin. Numerous types of paper, plastic or combinations thereof can thus be sorted with up to 98% accuracy.
For many materials the process of turning them back into useful raw materials is straightforward: metals are shredded into pieces, paper is reduced to pulp and glass is crushed into cullet. Metals and glass can be remelted almost indefinitely without any loss in quality, while paper can be recycled up to six times. (As it goes through the process, its fibres get shorter and the quality deteriorates.)
Plastics, which are made from fossil fuels, are somewhat different. Although they have many useful properties—they are flexible, lightweight and can be shaped into any form—there are many different types, most of which need to be processed separately. In 2005 less than 6% of the plastic from America's municipal waste stream was recovered. And of that small fraction, the only two types recycled in significant quantities were PET and HDPE. For PET, food-grade bottle-to-bottle recycling exists. But plastic is often “down-cycled” into other products such as plastic lumber (used in place of wood), drain pipes and carpet fibres, which tend to end up in landfills or incinerators at the end of their useful lives.
Even so, plastics are being used more and more, not just for packaging, but also in consumer goods such as cars, televisions and personal computers. Because such products are made of a variety of materials and can contain multiple types of plastic, metals (some of them toxic), and glass, they are especially difficult and expensive to dismantle and recycle.
Europe and Japan have initiated “take back” laws that require electronics manufacturers to recycle their products. But in America only a handful of states have passed such legislation. That has caused problems for companies that specialise in recycling plastics from complex waste streams and depend on take-back laws for getting the necessary feedstock. Michael Biddle, the boss of MBA Polymers, says the lack of such laws is one of the reasons why his company operates only a pilot plant in America and has its main facilities in China and Austria.
Much recyclable material can be processed locally, but ever more is being shipped to developing nations, especially China. The country has a large appetite for raw materials and that includes scrap metals, waste paper and plastics, all of which can be cheaper than virgin materials. In most cases, these waste materials are recycled into consumer goods or packaging and returned to Europe and America via container ships. With its hunger for resources and the availability of cheap labour, China has become the largest importer of recyclable materials in the world.
The China question
But the practice of shipping recyclables to China is controversial. Especially in Britain, politicians have voiced the concern that some of those exports may end up in landfills. Many experts disagree. According to Pieter van Beukering, an economist who has studied the trade of waste paper to India and waste plastics to China: “as soon as somebody is paying for the material, you bet it will be recycled.”
In fact, Dr van Beukering argues that by importing waste materials, recycling firms in developing countries are able to build larger factories and achieve economies of scale, recycling materials more efficiently and at lower environmental cost. He has witnessed as much in India, he says, where dozens of inefficient, polluting paper mills near Mumbai were transformed into a smaller number of far more productive and environmentally friendly factories within a few years.
Still, compared with Western countries, factories in developing nations may be less tightly regulated, and the recycling industry is no exception. China especially has been plagued by countless illegal-waste imports, many of which are processed by poor migrants in China's coastal regions. They dismantle and recycle anything from plastic to electronic waste without any protection for themselves or the environment.
The Chinese government has banned such practices, but migrant workers have spawned a mobile cottage industry that is difficult to wipe out, says Aya Yoshida, a researcher at Japan's National Institute for Environmental Studies who has studied Chinese waste imports and recycling practices. Because this type of industry operates largely under the radar, it is difficult to assess its overall impact. But it is clear that processing plastic and electronic waste in a crude manner releases toxic chemicals, harming people and the environment—the opposite of what recycling is supposed to achieve.
Under pressure from environmental groups, such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, some computer-makers have established rules to ensure that their products are recycled in a responsible way. Hewlett-Packard has been a leader in this and even operates its own recycling factories in California and Tennessee. Dell, which was once criticised for using prison labour to recycle its machines, now takes back its old computers for no charge. And last month Steve Jobs detailed Apple's plans to eliminate the use of toxic substances in its products.
Far less controversial is the recycling of glass—except, that is, in places where there is no market for it. Britain, for example, is struggling with a mountain of green glass. It is the largest importer of wine in the world, bringing in more than 1 billion litres every year, much of it in green glass bottles. But with only a tiny wine industry of its own, there is little demand for the resulting glass. Instead what is needed is clear glass, which is turned into bottles for spirits, and often exported to other countries. As a result, says Andy Dawe, WRAP's glass-technology manager, Britain is in the “peculiar situation” of having more green glass than it has production capacity for.
Britain's bottle-makers already use as much recycled green glass as they can in their furnaces to produce new bottles. So some of the surplus glass is down-cycled into construction aggregates or sand for filtration systems. But WRAP's own analysis reveals that the energy savings for both appear to be “marginal or even disadvantageous”. Working with industry, WRAP has started a new programme called GlassRite Wine, in an effort to right the imbalance. Instead of being bottled at source, some wine is now imported in 24,000-litre containers and then bottled in Britain. This may dismay some wine connoisseurs, but it solves two problems, says Mr Dawe: it reduces the amount of green glass that is imported and puts what is imported to good use. It can also cut shipping costs by up to 40%.
The future of recycling
This is an unusual case, however. More generally, one of the biggest barriers to more efficient recycling is that most products were not designed with recycling in mind. Remedying this problem may require a complete rethinking of industrial processes, says William McDonough, an architect and the co-author of a book published in 2002 called “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things”. Along with Michael Braungart, his fellow author and a chemist, he lays out a vision for establishing “closed-loop” cycles where there is no waste. Recycling should be taken into account at the design stage, they argue, and all materials should either be able to return to the soil safely or be recycled indefinitely. This may sound like wishful thinking, but Mr McDonough has a good pedigree. Over the years he has worked with companies including Ford and Google.
An outgrowth of “Cradle to Cradle” is the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a non-profit working group that has developed guidelines that look beyond the traditional benchmarks of packaging design to emphasise the use of renewable, recycled and non-toxic source materials, among other things. Founded in 2003 with just nine members, the group now boasts nearly 100 members, including Target, Starbucks and Estée Lauder, some of which have already begun to change the design of their packaging.
Sustainable packaging not only benefits the environment but can also cut costs. Last year Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, announced that it wanted to reduce the amount of packaging it uses by 5% by 2013, which could save the company as much as $3.4 billion and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 667,000 tonnes. As well as trying to reduce the amount of packaging, Wal-Mart also wants to recycle more of it. Two years ago the company began to use an unusual process, called the “sandwich bale”, to collect waste material at its stores and distribution centres for recycling. It involves putting a layer of cardboard at the bottom of a rubbish compactor before filling it with waste material, and then putting another layer of cardboard on top. The compactor then produces a “sandwich” which is easier to handle and transport, says Jeff Ashby of Rocky Mountain Recycling, who invented the process for Wal-Mart. As well as avoiding disposal costs for materials it previously sent to landfill, the company now makes money by selling waste at market prices.
EPA
EPA
It does get recycled, honest
Evidently there is plenty of scope for further innovation in recycling. New ideas and approaches will be needed, since many communities and organisations have set high targets for recycling. Europe's packaging directive requires member states to recycle 60% of their glass and paper, 50% of metals and 22.5% of plastic packaging by the end of 2008. Earlier this year the European Parliament voted to increase recycling rates by 2020 to 50% of municipal waste and 70% of industrial waste. Recycling rates can be boosted by charging households and businesses more if they produce more rubbish, and by reducing the frequency of rubbish collections while increasing that of recycling collections.
Meanwhile a number of cities and firms (including Wal-Mart, Toyota and Nike) have adopted zero-waste targets. This may be unrealistic but Matt Hale, director of the office of solid waste at America's Environmental Protection Agency, says it is a worthy goal and can help companies think about better ways to manage materials. It forces people to look at the entire life-cycle of a product, says Dr Hale, and ask questions: Can you reduce the amount of material to begin with? Can you design the product to make recycling easier?
If done right, there is no doubt that recycling saves energy and raw materials, and reduces pollution. But as well as trying to recycle more, it is also important to try to recycle better. As technologies and materials evolve, there is room for improvement and cause for optimism. In the end, says Ms Krebs, “waste is really a design flaw.”
ICC to cause increases in tolls statewide
======================================================================================
Commuters likely to face higher tolls
BALTIMORE -
Tolls on Maryland tunnels and bridges could increase more than 70 percent over the next five years to help pay for building the InterCounty Connector in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, and the new express toll lanes on Interstate 95 in Baltimore and Harford counties, a fiscal analyst told lawmakers Monday.
Based on information the Maryland Transportation Authority sent to lawmakers, average tolls throughout the system are expected to go up $1.20 (48 percent) as early as 2010 and 85 cents (23 percent) two years later. This would push one-way tolls at the Susquehanna River bridge on I-95 past $8 and at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to more than $4. Tolls were last raised in 2001.
“No decisions have been made at this time,” Deputy Transportation Secretary Beverley Swaim-Staley said.
Swaim-Staley said the department is actively assessing the revenue structures, and also looking at ways to reduce its construction costs.
“Tolls are probably going to be raised periodically,” said Ron Freeland, executive director of the authority, which manages the state’s toll facilities.
But fiscal analyst Jaclyn Dixon said the authority definitely has to raise tolls to finance the $2.8 billion in bonds that must be floated in the next five years to pay for the $2.2 billion ICC construction and $1 billion construction of the toll lanes.
Both projects will collect their own tolls to help pay the bonds to build them, as will federal highway dollars.
There will be a tenfold increase in the agency’s debt over the next five years, Dixon said in her analysis. The authority “could decrease strains [on its debt] by increasing tolls sooner rather than later,” including reducing commuter discounts.
“It’s actually cheaper now to cross the Bay Bridge than it was when it opened in 1952,” Dixon said, adjusting for inflation.
Del. Murray Levy, vice chairman of the transportation appropriations subcommittee, said there is no question that tolls must be raised to pay for the increased debt.
Commuters with booklets or E-Z Passes get substantial discounts, paying only 20 percent of the $2 rate on the Baltimore tunnels, for instance, and 16 percent at the Susquehanna Bridge. “We have the most generous discounts in the nation,” Freeland said.
Sen. E.J. Pipkin, R-Upper Shore, has proposed a bill to make the Transportation Authority get legislative approval for any tolls increases. The O’Malley administration opposes the move, because the bond rating agencies prefer that the Transportation Authority exercise independent authority.
“The bond rating agencies considered that one of its greatest strength,” Freeland.
llazarick@baltimoreexaminer.com
======================================================================================
Commuters likely to face higher tolls
BALTIMORE -
Tolls on Maryland tunnels and bridges could increase more than 70 percent over the next five years to help pay for building the InterCounty Connector in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, and the new express toll lanes on Interstate 95 in Baltimore and Harford counties, a fiscal analyst told lawmakers Monday.
Based on information the Maryland Transportation Authority sent to lawmakers, average tolls throughout the system are expected to go up $1.20 (48 percent) as early as 2010 and 85 cents (23 percent) two years later. This would push one-way tolls at the Susquehanna River bridge on I-95 past $8 and at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to more than $4. Tolls were last raised in 2001.
“No decisions have been made at this time,” Deputy Transportation Secretary Beverley Swaim-Staley said.
Swaim-Staley said the department is actively assessing the revenue structures, and also looking at ways to reduce its construction costs.
“Tolls are probably going to be raised periodically,” said Ron Freeland, executive director of the authority, which manages the state’s toll facilities.
But fiscal analyst Jaclyn Dixon said the authority definitely has to raise tolls to finance the $2.8 billion in bonds that must be floated in the next five years to pay for the $2.2 billion ICC construction and $1 billion construction of the toll lanes.
Both projects will collect their own tolls to help pay the bonds to build them, as will federal highway dollars.
There will be a tenfold increase in the agency’s debt over the next five years, Dixon said in her analysis. The authority “could decrease strains [on its debt] by increasing tolls sooner rather than later,” including reducing commuter discounts.
“It’s actually cheaper now to cross the Bay Bridge than it was when it opened in 1952,” Dixon said, adjusting for inflation.
Del. Murray Levy, vice chairman of the transportation appropriations subcommittee, said there is no question that tolls must be raised to pay for the increased debt.
Commuters with booklets or E-Z Passes get substantial discounts, paying only 20 percent of the $2 rate on the Baltimore tunnels, for instance, and 16 percent at the Susquehanna Bridge. “We have the most generous discounts in the nation,” Freeland said.
Sen. E.J. Pipkin, R-Upper Shore, has proposed a bill to make the Transportation Authority get legislative approval for any tolls increases. The O’Malley administration opposes the move, because the bond rating agencies prefer that the Transportation Authority exercise independent authority.
“The bond rating agencies considered that one of its greatest strength,” Freeland.
llazarick@baltimoreexaminer.com
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Polar Bears to be designated "Threatened"
============================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2007/05/polar-plight-bears-are-endangered.asp
Polar Plight: Bears are endangered, should be protected
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Salt Lake Tribune May 2, 2007
It shouldn't be too difficult. The decision whether or not to list a plant or an animal as endangered should be based on science, as indeed it is in the Endangered Species Act. Trouble is, the act itself appears endangered by politicians for whom science is an obstacle.
The act specifies the conditions under which the survival of an animal can be considered in jeopardy. Scientists decide whether those conditions exist for any threatened species.
Take the polar bear, for example. Scientists know that the bears are in trouble, and they know it is because the sea ice on which they live is melting. Summer ice decreased 8.59 percent per decade between 1979 and 2006. At this rate, the Arctic Ocean sea ice will disappear by 2060, sooner if the rate escalates.
Since polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt, breed and travel, the loss of it seems an obvious threat to their survival. The Center for Biological Diversity makes this point in its 154-page petition for listing polar bears as endangered. The National Fish and Wildlife Service concurs.
But Alaska's new governor and a majority of its legislators oppose the listing, and it's easy to see why. They are concerned about the survival of the state's royalties and taxes coming from the oil industry - 85 percent of the state's general fund - and a proposal to build a gas pipeline to the lower 48 states. A polar bear recovery plan might hinder Alaska's oil and gas development, so Alaska officials claim the petition to list the bear as endangered is nothing more than a ploy by conservationists. They say the bear is being used as a poster animal by climatologists trying to drum up concern about climate change caused by burning of fossil fuels, which is probably true, as far as it goes.
But the officials in Alaska also make the specious claim that human-caused global warming is unproven and unfounded, despite a global consensus among experts to the contrary. Not only is their argument insupportable, it is beside the point. No matter the cause, the bear's habitat is disappearing, endangering not only this top-of-the-food- chain predator, but the Arctic ecosystem that is its home.
Politicizing the Endangered Species Act for the sake of the fossil fuels that are driving the climate change that threatens the polar bear - and the rest of us - isn't just unscientific. It is colossally myopic.
============================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2007/05/polar-plight-bears-are-endangered.asp
Polar Plight: Bears are endangered, should be protected
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Salt Lake Tribune May 2, 2007
It shouldn't be too difficult. The decision whether or not to list a plant or an animal as endangered should be based on science, as indeed it is in the Endangered Species Act. Trouble is, the act itself appears endangered by politicians for whom science is an obstacle.
The act specifies the conditions under which the survival of an animal can be considered in jeopardy. Scientists decide whether those conditions exist for any threatened species.
Take the polar bear, for example. Scientists know that the bears are in trouble, and they know it is because the sea ice on which they live is melting. Summer ice decreased 8.59 percent per decade between 1979 and 2006. At this rate, the Arctic Ocean sea ice will disappear by 2060, sooner if the rate escalates.
Since polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt, breed and travel, the loss of it seems an obvious threat to their survival. The Center for Biological Diversity makes this point in its 154-page petition for listing polar bears as endangered. The National Fish and Wildlife Service concurs.
But Alaska's new governor and a majority of its legislators oppose the listing, and it's easy to see why. They are concerned about the survival of the state's royalties and taxes coming from the oil industry - 85 percent of the state's general fund - and a proposal to build a gas pipeline to the lower 48 states. A polar bear recovery plan might hinder Alaska's oil and gas development, so Alaska officials claim the petition to list the bear as endangered is nothing more than a ploy by conservationists. They say the bear is being used as a poster animal by climatologists trying to drum up concern about climate change caused by burning of fossil fuels, which is probably true, as far as it goes.
But the officials in Alaska also make the specious claim that human-caused global warming is unproven and unfounded, despite a global consensus among experts to the contrary. Not only is their argument insupportable, it is beside the point. No matter the cause, the bear's habitat is disappearing, endangering not only this top-of-the-food- chain predator, but the Arctic ecosystem that is its home.
Politicizing the Endangered Species Act for the sake of the fossil fuels that are driving the climate change that threatens the polar bear - and the rest of us - isn't just unscientific. It is colossally myopic.
Nuclear Power a Non-starter for replacing fossil fuel.
===================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david-flemings-new-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/
David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me. The report’s key findings are;
1.
The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
2.
It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
3.
Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives – leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
4.
The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
5.
Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
6.
Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
7.
An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
8.
There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
Get a copy, have a read. If you think Fleming’s analysis is wrong, tell us about it here. I think this book does us all a great service in setting out the nuclear case in the light of peak oil and climate change, and also in the light of ‘peak uranium’. His conclusion that, in the light of uranium depletion, “the task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels” is something to spend the rest of today chewing over the implications of, and how profoundly irresponsible it is, in that context, to advocate building any new nuclear power plants.
===================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david-flemings-new-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/
David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me. The report’s key findings are;
1.
The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
2.
It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
3.
Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives – leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
4.
The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
5.
Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
6.
Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.
7.
An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
8.
There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
Get a copy, have a read. If you think Fleming’s analysis is wrong, tell us about it here. I think this book does us all a great service in setting out the nuclear case in the light of peak oil and climate change, and also in the light of ‘peak uranium’. His conclusion that, in the light of uranium depletion, “the task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry’s output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels” is something to spend the rest of today chewing over the implications of, and how profoundly irresponsible it is, in that context, to advocate building any new nuclear power plants.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Bottled Water Farce Coming to an End?
================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/13/5817/
Bottled Water Boycotts: Back-to-the-Tap Movement Gains Momentum
by Janet Larsen
From San Francisco to New York to Paris, city governments, high-class restaurants, schools, and religious groups are ditching bottled water in favor of what comes out of the faucet. With people no longer content to pay 1,000 times as much for bottled water, a product no better than water from the tap, a backlash against bottled water is growing.1213 08
The U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents some 1,100 American cities, discussed at its June 2007 meeting the irony of purchasing bottled water for city employees and for city functions while at the same time touting the quality of municipal water. The group passed a resolution sponsored by Mayors Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, and R. T. Rybak of Minneapolis that called for the examination of bottled water’s environmental impact. The resolution noted that with $43 billion a year going to provide clean drinking water in cities across the country, “the United States’ municipal water systems are among the finest in the world.”
While the Mayors Conference fell short of moving to stop taxpayer money from filling the coffers of water bottlers, a growing number of cities are heading in that direction. Los Angeles, which has restricted the purchase of bottled water with city funds since 1987, now has more company. By the end of 2007, purchasing bottled water will be off-limits for San Francisco’s departments and agencies, saving a half-million dollars each year and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. St. Louis is poised to ban bottled water purchases for city employees in early 2008.
At the launch of Corporate Accountability International’s “Think Outside the Bottle” campaign in October, Mayor Anderson of Salt Lake City described the “total absurdity and irresponsibility, both economic and environmental, of purchasing and using bottled water when we have perfectly good and safe municipal sources of tap water.” He urged city government departments and restaurants to stop buying bottled water.
In November, the city council of Chicago, beleaguered by swelling landfills and a stretched budget, placed a landmark tax of 5¢ on every bottle of water sold in the city in order to discourage consumption. That same month, Illinois state agencies were banned from purchasing bottled water with government funds. With 86 percent of used water bottles in the United States ending up as garbage or litter instead of being recycled, switching from the bottle to the tap helps to alleviate the trash burden.
New York City is urging residents to drink tap water, which is naturally filtered in the protected Catskill forest region. In Kentucky, the Louisville water utility hands out free bottles for residents to fill with “Pure Tap.” Dozens of other local governments are talking up tap water and are looking into banning the bottle. (See list of other cities and initiatives.)
Tap water promotional campaigns would have seemed quaint a few decades ago, when water in bottles was a rarity. Now such endeavors are needed to counteract the pervasive marketing that has caused consumers to lose faith in the faucet. In fact, more than a quarter of bottled water is just processed tap water, including top-selling Aquafina and Coca-Cola’s Dasani. When Pepsi announced in July that it would clearly label its Aquafina water as from a “public water source,” it no doubt shocked everyone who believed that bottles with labels depicting pristine mountains or glaciers delivered a superior product.
Despite the less-frequent quality testing and sometimes commonplace origin of the product, bottled water consumption has soared. Annual consumption in the United States in 1976 was less than 2 gallons for every man, woman, and child; some 30 years later, Americans on average each now drink about 30 gallons of bottled water a year. (See data.)
All this hydration costs Americans more than $15 billion a year. The price of individual bottles of water ranges up to several dollars a gallon (and more for designer brands), while tap water is delivered directly to homes and offices for less than a penny a gallon. People complaining about $3-a-gallon gasoline may start to wonder why they are paying even more per gallon for bottled water.
With sales growing by 10 percent each year, far faster than any other beverage, bottled water now appears to be the drink of choice for many Americans-they swallow more of it than milk, juice, beer, coffee, or tea. (See data.) While some industry analysts are counting on bottled water to beat out carbonated soft drinks to top the charts in the near future, the burgeoning back-to-the-tap movement may reverse the trend.
In contrast to tap water, which is delivered through an energy-efficient infrastructure, bottled water is an incredibly wasteful product. It is usually packaged in single-serving plastic bottles made with fossil fuels. Just manufacturing the 29 billion plastic bottles used for water in the United States each year requires the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of crude oil.
After being filled, the bottles may travel far. Nearly one quarter of bottled water crosses national borders before reaching consumers, and part of the cachet of certain bottled water brands is their remote origin. Adding in the Pacific Institute’s estimates for the energy used for pumping and processing, transportation, and refrigeration, brings the annual fossil fuel footprint of bottled water consumption in the United States to over 50 million barrels of oil equivalent-enough to run 3 million cars for one year. If everyone drank as much bottled water as Americans do, the world would need the equivalent of more than 1 billion barrels of oil to produce close to 650 billion individual bottles.
Concerns about this high energy use and the associated contribution to climate change, along with worries about waste, are driving many groups back to tap water. The United Church of Canada is one of the religious groups abandoning bottled water for moral reasons. The Berkeley school district no longer offers bottled water. And after watching 3,000 empty bottles pile up each week, the Nashville law firm Bass, Berry, & Sims has stopped stocking bottled water.
Europeans have long led the world in per person consumption of bottled water. Italy tops the list worldwide, with Italians drinking 54 gallons per person in 2006. Italy is closely trailed in per capita consumption by the United Arab Emirates and Mexico, followed by France, Belgium, Germany, and Spain. (See data.)
Yet even in Western Europe the bottle is starting to lose clout. Rome, a city of many historic fountains, is promoting its tap water. Florence’s city council, schools, and other public offices offer only city water. In the United Kingdom, the Treasury and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have ceased offering bottled water at official functions. Bottled water sales in Scandinavia are projected to fall because of growing environmental concerns.
Even France, home to Evian, is seeing a sales slowdown. During a 2005 tap water promotion campaign in Paris, the water utility handed out refillable glass carafes. Now Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë serves only tap water at official events and encourages others to do the same. Total bottled water sales in France fell in 2004 and 2005, but rebounded in 2006.
Slowing sales may be the wave of the future as the bottle boycott movement picks up speed. With more than 1 billion people around the globe still lacking access to a safe and reliable source of water, the $100 billion the world spends on bottled water every year could certainly be put to better use creating and maintaining safe public water infrastructure everywhere.
Copyright © 2007 Earth Policy Institute
================================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/13/5817/
Bottled Water Boycotts: Back-to-the-Tap Movement Gains Momentum
by Janet Larsen
From San Francisco to New York to Paris, city governments, high-class restaurants, schools, and religious groups are ditching bottled water in favor of what comes out of the faucet. With people no longer content to pay 1,000 times as much for bottled water, a product no better than water from the tap, a backlash against bottled water is growing.1213 08
The U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents some 1,100 American cities, discussed at its June 2007 meeting the irony of purchasing bottled water for city employees and for city functions while at the same time touting the quality of municipal water. The group passed a resolution sponsored by Mayors Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, and R. T. Rybak of Minneapolis that called for the examination of bottled water’s environmental impact. The resolution noted that with $43 billion a year going to provide clean drinking water in cities across the country, “the United States’ municipal water systems are among the finest in the world.”
While the Mayors Conference fell short of moving to stop taxpayer money from filling the coffers of water bottlers, a growing number of cities are heading in that direction. Los Angeles, which has restricted the purchase of bottled water with city funds since 1987, now has more company. By the end of 2007, purchasing bottled water will be off-limits for San Francisco’s departments and agencies, saving a half-million dollars each year and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. St. Louis is poised to ban bottled water purchases for city employees in early 2008.
At the launch of Corporate Accountability International’s “Think Outside the Bottle” campaign in October, Mayor Anderson of Salt Lake City described the “total absurdity and irresponsibility, both economic and environmental, of purchasing and using bottled water when we have perfectly good and safe municipal sources of tap water.” He urged city government departments and restaurants to stop buying bottled water.
In November, the city council of Chicago, beleaguered by swelling landfills and a stretched budget, placed a landmark tax of 5¢ on every bottle of water sold in the city in order to discourage consumption. That same month, Illinois state agencies were banned from purchasing bottled water with government funds. With 86 percent of used water bottles in the United States ending up as garbage or litter instead of being recycled, switching from the bottle to the tap helps to alleviate the trash burden.
New York City is urging residents to drink tap water, which is naturally filtered in the protected Catskill forest region. In Kentucky, the Louisville water utility hands out free bottles for residents to fill with “Pure Tap.” Dozens of other local governments are talking up tap water and are looking into banning the bottle. (See list of other cities and initiatives.)
Tap water promotional campaigns would have seemed quaint a few decades ago, when water in bottles was a rarity. Now such endeavors are needed to counteract the pervasive marketing that has caused consumers to lose faith in the faucet. In fact, more than a quarter of bottled water is just processed tap water, including top-selling Aquafina and Coca-Cola’s Dasani. When Pepsi announced in July that it would clearly label its Aquafina water as from a “public water source,” it no doubt shocked everyone who believed that bottles with labels depicting pristine mountains or glaciers delivered a superior product.
Despite the less-frequent quality testing and sometimes commonplace origin of the product, bottled water consumption has soared. Annual consumption in the United States in 1976 was less than 2 gallons for every man, woman, and child; some 30 years later, Americans on average each now drink about 30 gallons of bottled water a year. (See data.)
All this hydration costs Americans more than $15 billion a year. The price of individual bottles of water ranges up to several dollars a gallon (and more for designer brands), while tap water is delivered directly to homes and offices for less than a penny a gallon. People complaining about $3-a-gallon gasoline may start to wonder why they are paying even more per gallon for bottled water.
With sales growing by 10 percent each year, far faster than any other beverage, bottled water now appears to be the drink of choice for many Americans-they swallow more of it than milk, juice, beer, coffee, or tea. (See data.) While some industry analysts are counting on bottled water to beat out carbonated soft drinks to top the charts in the near future, the burgeoning back-to-the-tap movement may reverse the trend.
In contrast to tap water, which is delivered through an energy-efficient infrastructure, bottled water is an incredibly wasteful product. It is usually packaged in single-serving plastic bottles made with fossil fuels. Just manufacturing the 29 billion plastic bottles used for water in the United States each year requires the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of crude oil.
After being filled, the bottles may travel far. Nearly one quarter of bottled water crosses national borders before reaching consumers, and part of the cachet of certain bottled water brands is their remote origin. Adding in the Pacific Institute’s estimates for the energy used for pumping and processing, transportation, and refrigeration, brings the annual fossil fuel footprint of bottled water consumption in the United States to over 50 million barrels of oil equivalent-enough to run 3 million cars for one year. If everyone drank as much bottled water as Americans do, the world would need the equivalent of more than 1 billion barrels of oil to produce close to 650 billion individual bottles.
Concerns about this high energy use and the associated contribution to climate change, along with worries about waste, are driving many groups back to tap water. The United Church of Canada is one of the religious groups abandoning bottled water for moral reasons. The Berkeley school district no longer offers bottled water. And after watching 3,000 empty bottles pile up each week, the Nashville law firm Bass, Berry, & Sims has stopped stocking bottled water.
Europeans have long led the world in per person consumption of bottled water. Italy tops the list worldwide, with Italians drinking 54 gallons per person in 2006. Italy is closely trailed in per capita consumption by the United Arab Emirates and Mexico, followed by France, Belgium, Germany, and Spain. (See data.)
Yet even in Western Europe the bottle is starting to lose clout. Rome, a city of many historic fountains, is promoting its tap water. Florence’s city council, schools, and other public offices offer only city water. In the United Kingdom, the Treasury and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have ceased offering bottled water at official functions. Bottled water sales in Scandinavia are projected to fall because of growing environmental concerns.
Even France, home to Evian, is seeing a sales slowdown. During a 2005 tap water promotion campaign in Paris, the water utility handed out refillable glass carafes. Now Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë serves only tap water at official events and encourages others to do the same. Total bottled water sales in France fell in 2004 and 2005, but rebounded in 2006.
Slowing sales may be the wave of the future as the bottle boycott movement picks up speed. With more than 1 billion people around the globe still lacking access to a safe and reliable source of water, the $100 billion the world spends on bottled water every year could certainly be put to better use creating and maintaining safe public water infrastructure everywhere.
Copyright © 2007 Earth Policy Institute
Hummer versus Prius Article
================================================================================
originally posted at :
http://community.gaiam.com/gaiam/p/Hybrid-vs-Hummer-Which-is-greener.html
Q. I read that hybrid cars are actually less green-friendly than even Hummers, because they have two motors and very environmentally damaging batteries. Is this true?
– Renee Sweany, Indianapolis, Ind.
A. The claim you read about was from “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal,” a controversial study by researcher Art Spinella of Oregon-based CNW Marketing. It ranks more than 300 vehicles for their energy use over their entire lifecycles—from raw materials extraction and manufacturing, to driving and burning fuel, to the recycling and disposal of parts. What surprised even Spinella was how the Toyota Prius, the world’s most successful gasoline-electric hybrid car, stacked up against General Motors’ behemoth Hummer, the modern poster child for unsustainable transportation.
“The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius,” wrote Spinella in his report. A key-determining factor was the hybrid battery’s use of nickel extracted from a Sudbury, Ontario mine that has emitted so much sulfur dioxide that acid rain has turned a once healthy nearby forest into a bleak landscape. That mine, however, which supplies nickel for many industrial purposes and not just hybrid batteries, has cut pollution 90 percent since the 1970s.
Another common criticism of hybrids is that their batteries will be a pollution threat once they land in the junkyard. But hybrid advocates insist that the nickel-metal hydride batteries found in the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and other hybrids contain far fewer pollutants than the lead-acid varieties used in traditional cars. And initial worries that hybrid batteries would need replacement every few years have not borne out; Toyota says the batteries should go for 150,000 miles, which they predict to be the car’s life expectancy.
Spinella pegs the life of the typical Prius bought new today at only 100,000 miles, and contrasts that against a predicted 300,000 for Hummers—meaning that, though Hummers burn more gas and emit more pollutants, they will last much longer. Additionally, Spinella factors in the added production costs of including two separate engines in the Prius—one that runs on gas and the other on electricity.
Most environmentalists challenge Spinella’s conclusions. Jim Kliesch, research analyst with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which publishes a yearly rating of the “Greenest and Meanest” cars, says the CNW study contradicts many other studies, including those conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon, Argonne National Labs, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that place the green-friendliness of the Prius and other hybrids head and shoulders above many other vehicles and certainly the Hummer.
Spinella is “way off the mark,” says Kliesch, and scolds CNW for not having “Dust to Dust” peer-reviewed for accuracy. “If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on their claims,” he says, “you’ll find that it takes about $286,500 in energy to produce and assemble a Prius, [which is] absurd.”
Toyota itself also disputes CNW’s findings. In a short rebuttal published in the Washington Post, Toyota vice-president Irv Miller said that the increased energy requirement to build a hybrid with two engines under the hood “is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage.”
================================================================================
originally posted at :
http://community.gaiam.com/gaiam/p/Hybrid-vs-Hummer-Which-is-greener.html
Q. I read that hybrid cars are actually less green-friendly than even Hummers, because they have two motors and very environmentally damaging batteries. Is this true?
– Renee Sweany, Indianapolis, Ind.
A. The claim you read about was from “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal,” a controversial study by researcher Art Spinella of Oregon-based CNW Marketing. It ranks more than 300 vehicles for their energy use over their entire lifecycles—from raw materials extraction and manufacturing, to driving and burning fuel, to the recycling and disposal of parts. What surprised even Spinella was how the Toyota Prius, the world’s most successful gasoline-electric hybrid car, stacked up against General Motors’ behemoth Hummer, the modern poster child for unsustainable transportation.
“The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius,” wrote Spinella in his report. A key-determining factor was the hybrid battery’s use of nickel extracted from a Sudbury, Ontario mine that has emitted so much sulfur dioxide that acid rain has turned a once healthy nearby forest into a bleak landscape. That mine, however, which supplies nickel for many industrial purposes and not just hybrid batteries, has cut pollution 90 percent since the 1970s.
Another common criticism of hybrids is that their batteries will be a pollution threat once they land in the junkyard. But hybrid advocates insist that the nickel-metal hydride batteries found in the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and other hybrids contain far fewer pollutants than the lead-acid varieties used in traditional cars. And initial worries that hybrid batteries would need replacement every few years have not borne out; Toyota says the batteries should go for 150,000 miles, which they predict to be the car’s life expectancy.
Spinella pegs the life of the typical Prius bought new today at only 100,000 miles, and contrasts that against a predicted 300,000 for Hummers—meaning that, though Hummers burn more gas and emit more pollutants, they will last much longer. Additionally, Spinella factors in the added production costs of including two separate engines in the Prius—one that runs on gas and the other on electricity.
Most environmentalists challenge Spinella’s conclusions. Jim Kliesch, research analyst with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which publishes a yearly rating of the “Greenest and Meanest” cars, says the CNW study contradicts many other studies, including those conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon, Argonne National Labs, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that place the green-friendliness of the Prius and other hybrids head and shoulders above many other vehicles and certainly the Hummer.
Spinella is “way off the mark,” says Kliesch, and scolds CNW for not having “Dust to Dust” peer-reviewed for accuracy. “If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on their claims,” he says, “you’ll find that it takes about $286,500 in energy to produce and assemble a Prius, [which is] absurd.”
Toyota itself also disputes CNW’s findings. In a short rebuttal published in the Washington Post, Toyota vice-president Irv Miller said that the increased energy requirement to build a hybrid with two engines under the hood “is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage.”
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sea Turbines - Is the Ocean the Answer?
==============================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/4/204621/501
Is the Ocean the Answer?
by tecampbellhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
After participating in a discussion in Plutonium Page's excellent Front Page diary Non-Treehuggers Criticize the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership I started doing a bit more research on a rarely spoken of renewable energy solution: sea turbines. (see also http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,892292,00.html)
The more I researched the more I realized the tremendous potential of the oceans as a sustainable energy resource.
There are now numerous competing technologies for using the ocean as a resource, from above water buoys and planes, to below surface turbines like the one mentioned above, to ocean thermal energy conversion, to shoreline devices which harness the motion of waves as they push an air pocket up and down behind a breakwater. A very good overview of the available technologies can be found here. (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Ocean_Wave_Energy)
According to one study, wave power alone could produce as much electricity as coal:
According to a report released in January, 2005, the total wave power along the coastlines of the U.S. is approximately 2,100 terrawatt hours per year, nearly as much as all of the electricity produced by coal and roughly 10 times the total energy produced by all of the country's hydroelectric plants.
Why aren't these systems being implemented in the US? Apparently, the federal government is the issue:
Bedard says that wave energy systems requires smaller investments than offshore wind energy systems because the equipment is much lighter, but the private sector has been wary to invest because the expense for setting up demonstrations is high, and obtaining federal permits can take many years.
Instead, Bedard says the federal government should step in with funding to help the technology succeed.
"Very simply, new energy sources have always been funded by the federal government," Bedard says. However, "(t)he Department of Energy does not have an ocean energy program.".
The Department of Energy had a program for ocean energy, but it was discontinued, according to spokesman Tom Welch.
The UK, South Africa, and Israel all have instituted or are moving forward with programs using ocean energy. But the Energy Department under Bush/Cheney has nuked the program?
This country needs to move forward on all available renewable energy resources. The investment by the federal government in wind power and solar power also has declined proportionally to that of fossil fuel and nuclear production. Clearly these technologies must be part of the solution to fighting global warming and dealing with diminishing resources.
Perhaps Congressional involvement is in order? Apparently it is moving forward, but it may be an uphill fight to get it past the Bush administration. Call or write your Congresspersons/Senators for support.
==============================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/4/204621/501
Is the Ocean the Answer?
by tecampbellhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
After participating in a discussion in Plutonium Page's excellent Front Page diary Non-Treehuggers Criticize the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership I started doing a bit more research on a rarely spoken of renewable energy solution: sea turbines. (see also http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,892292,00.html)
The more I researched the more I realized the tremendous potential of the oceans as a sustainable energy resource.
There are now numerous competing technologies for using the ocean as a resource, from above water buoys and planes, to below surface turbines like the one mentioned above, to ocean thermal energy conversion, to shoreline devices which harness the motion of waves as they push an air pocket up and down behind a breakwater. A very good overview of the available technologies can be found here. (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Ocean_Wave_Energy)
According to one study, wave power alone could produce as much electricity as coal:
According to a report released in January, 2005, the total wave power along the coastlines of the U.S. is approximately 2,100 terrawatt hours per year, nearly as much as all of the electricity produced by coal and roughly 10 times the total energy produced by all of the country's hydroelectric plants.
Why aren't these systems being implemented in the US? Apparently, the federal government is the issue:
Bedard says that wave energy systems requires smaller investments than offshore wind energy systems because the equipment is much lighter, but the private sector has been wary to invest because the expense for setting up demonstrations is high, and obtaining federal permits can take many years.
Instead, Bedard says the federal government should step in with funding to help the technology succeed.
"Very simply, new energy sources have always been funded by the federal government," Bedard says. However, "(t)he Department of Energy does not have an ocean energy program.".
The Department of Energy had a program for ocean energy, but it was discontinued, according to spokesman Tom Welch.
The UK, South Africa, and Israel all have instituted or are moving forward with programs using ocean energy. But the Energy Department under Bush/Cheney has nuked the program?
This country needs to move forward on all available renewable energy resources. The investment by the federal government in wind power and solar power also has declined proportionally to that of fossil fuel and nuclear production. Clearly these technologies must be part of the solution to fighting global warming and dealing with diminishing resources.
Perhaps Congressional involvement is in order? Apparently it is moving forward, but it may be an uphill fight to get it past the Bush administration. Call or write your Congresspersons/Senators for support.
Problems with E-Waste Recycling
==============================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/index.cfm
(ORIGINAL SOURCE HAS LINKS TO MORE DETAILS)
The Problem
The problem of outdated, unwanted electronics is huge -- and growing still.
In the US, we scrap about 400 million units per year of consumer electronics, according to recycling industry experts. Discarded computers, monitors, televisions, and other consumer electronics (so called e-waste) are the fastest growing portion of our waste stream -- growing by almost 8% from 2004 to 2005, even though our overall municipal waste stream volume is declining, according to the EPA.
Rapid advances in technology mean that electronic products are becoming obsolete more quickly. This, coupled with explosive sales in consumer electronics, means that more products are being disposed of, finding their way into landfills and incinerators. To make matters worse, the FCC mandated transition to digital television (like HDTV) in February 2009, will only speed up the pace, as consumers will soon be dumping large numbers of old TVs that can't receive the new digital-only signals.
Discarded computers and electronics are toxic hazardous waste.
Monitors and televisions made with tubes (not flat panels) have between 4 and 8 pounds of lead in them. Most of the flat panel monitors and TV's contain less lead, but more mercury, from their mercury lamps. About 40% of the heavy metals, including lead, mercury and cadmium, in landfills come from electronic equipment discards. The health effects of lead are well known; just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury can contaminate 20 acres of a lake, making the fish unfit to eat.
Recycling computers isn't like recycling old cardboard.
The EPA estimates that in 2005, the US generated 2.63 million TONS of e-waste. But only 12.5% of that was collected for recycling. The other 87.5% went to landfills and incinerators, despite the fact that hazardous chemicals in them can leach out of landfills into groundwater and streams, or that burning the plastics in electronics can emit dioxin.
These numbers don't include the millions of stockpiled computers, monitors and TV - which are stored in basements, garages, offices, closets and homes awaiting a decision.
Industry Plagued by "Sham" Recycling
And what about the 12% that are supposedly recycled? Some discarded equipment is handled by firms that operate under strict environmental controls and high worker safety protections. But many other firms do not operate under strict controls, or act responsibly. They remove the valuable metals from the equipment and send the remaining scrap to landfills or incinerators. Without adequate protections, workers dismantling discarded electronic equipment are exposed to many chemical compounds with known and suspected negative health effects.
50 to 80% Exported
Considerably more equipment -- one estimate sets the figure as high as 50 to 80% of e-waste that is collected for recycling-- is shipped overseas for dismantling under horrific conditions, poisoning the people, land, air, and water in China, other Asian nations, and possibly Mexico as well.
Prison Recycling
Electronic recycling operations are increasingly active within America's prison systems. Inmate laborers are not automatically afforded the same degree of worker health and safety protections as are people employed on the outside, nor are they paid comparable wages. Moreover, reliance on high tech chain gangs may frustrate development of the free market infrastructure necessary to safely manage our mountains of e-waste. Prisons are also taxpayer-supported institutions.
Corporate practice and public policy have failed to address the problems. At present, the cost of managing discarded computers and electronics falls on taxpayers and local governments. Local governments, private agencies, and individual consumers have been handed the most responsibility for responding to the e-waste crisis, but have the least power to compel manufacturers to do anything about it. Brand owners and manufacturers in the U.S. have dodged their responsibility for management of products at the end of their useful life, while public policy has failed to promote producer take back, clean design, and clean production. Taxpayers are paying dearly for the consequences of manufacturing choices they did not make and over which they have little control.
==============================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/index.cfm
(ORIGINAL SOURCE HAS LINKS TO MORE DETAILS)
The Problem
The problem of outdated, unwanted electronics is huge -- and growing still.
In the US, we scrap about 400 million units per year of consumer electronics, according to recycling industry experts. Discarded computers, monitors, televisions, and other consumer electronics (so called e-waste) are the fastest growing portion of our waste stream -- growing by almost 8% from 2004 to 2005, even though our overall municipal waste stream volume is declining, according to the EPA.
Rapid advances in technology mean that electronic products are becoming obsolete more quickly. This, coupled with explosive sales in consumer electronics, means that more products are being disposed of, finding their way into landfills and incinerators. To make matters worse, the FCC mandated transition to digital television (like HDTV) in February 2009, will only speed up the pace, as consumers will soon be dumping large numbers of old TVs that can't receive the new digital-only signals.
Discarded computers and electronics are toxic hazardous waste.
Monitors and televisions made with tubes (not flat panels) have between 4 and 8 pounds of lead in them. Most of the flat panel monitors and TV's contain less lead, but more mercury, from their mercury lamps. About 40% of the heavy metals, including lead, mercury and cadmium, in landfills come from electronic equipment discards. The health effects of lead are well known; just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury can contaminate 20 acres of a lake, making the fish unfit to eat.
Recycling computers isn't like recycling old cardboard.
The EPA estimates that in 2005, the US generated 2.63 million TONS of e-waste. But only 12.5% of that was collected for recycling. The other 87.5% went to landfills and incinerators, despite the fact that hazardous chemicals in them can leach out of landfills into groundwater and streams, or that burning the plastics in electronics can emit dioxin.
These numbers don't include the millions of stockpiled computers, monitors and TV - which are stored in basements, garages, offices, closets and homes awaiting a decision.
Industry Plagued by "Sham" Recycling
And what about the 12% that are supposedly recycled? Some discarded equipment is handled by firms that operate under strict environmental controls and high worker safety protections. But many other firms do not operate under strict controls, or act responsibly. They remove the valuable metals from the equipment and send the remaining scrap to landfills or incinerators. Without adequate protections, workers dismantling discarded electronic equipment are exposed to many chemical compounds with known and suspected negative health effects.
50 to 80% Exported
Considerably more equipment -- one estimate sets the figure as high as 50 to 80% of e-waste that is collected for recycling-- is shipped overseas for dismantling under horrific conditions, poisoning the people, land, air, and water in China, other Asian nations, and possibly Mexico as well.
Prison Recycling
Electronic recycling operations are increasingly active within America's prison systems. Inmate laborers are not automatically afforded the same degree of worker health and safety protections as are people employed on the outside, nor are they paid comparable wages. Moreover, reliance on high tech chain gangs may frustrate development of the free market infrastructure necessary to safely manage our mountains of e-waste. Prisons are also taxpayer-supported institutions.
Corporate practice and public policy have failed to address the problems. At present, the cost of managing discarded computers and electronics falls on taxpayers and local governments. Local governments, private agencies, and individual consumers have been handed the most responsibility for responding to the e-waste crisis, but have the least power to compel manufacturers to do anything about it. Brand owners and manufacturers in the U.S. have dodged their responsibility for management of products at the end of their useful life, while public policy has failed to promote producer take back, clean design, and clean production. Taxpayers are paying dearly for the consequences of manufacturing choices they did not make and over which they have little control.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Little Green Lies
=======================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Little Green Lies
By Ben Elgin
The sweet notion that making a company environmentally friendly can be not just cost-effective but profitable is going up in smoke. Meet the man wielding the torch
podcast
COVER STORY PODCAST
Auden Schendler learned about corporate environmentalism directly from the prophet of the movement. In the late 1990s, Schendler was working as a junior researcher at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank in Aspen led by Amory Lovins, legendary author of the idea that by "going green," companies can increase profits while saving the planet. As Lovins often told Schendler and others at the institute, boosting energy efficiency and reducing harmful emissions constitute not just a free lunch but "a lunch you're paid to eat."
Slide Show >>
Inspired by this marvelous promise, Schendler took a job in 1999 at Aspen Skiing Co., becoming one of the first of a new breed: the in-house "corporate sustainability" advocate. Eight years later, it takes him six hours crisscrossing the Aspen region by car and foot to show a visitor some of the ways he has helped the posh, 800-employee resort blunt its contribution to global warming. Schendler, 37, a tanned and muscular mountain climber, clambers atop a storage shed to point out sleek solar panels on an employee-housing rooftop. He hikes down a stony slope for a view of the resort's miniature power plant, fueled by the rushing waters of a mountain creek. The company features its environmental credentials in its marketing and has decorated its headquarters with green trophies and plaques. Last year Time honored Schendler as a "Climate Crusader" in an article accompanied by a half-page photo of the jut-jawed executive standing amid snow-covered evergreens.
But at the end of this arid late-summer afternoon, Schendler is feeling anything but triumphant. He pulls a company sedan to the side of a dirt road and turns off the motor. "Who are we kidding?" he says, finally. Despite all his exertions, the resort's greenhouse-gas emissions continue to creep up year after year. More vacationers mean larger lodgings burning more power. Warmer winters require tons of additional artificial snow, another energy drain. "I've succeeded in doing a lot of sexy projects yet utterly failed in what I set out to do," Schendler says. "How do you really green your company? It's almost f------ impossible."
Barely a day goes by without a prominent corporation loudly announcing its latest green accomplishments: retailers retrofitting stores to cut energy consumption, utilities developing pristine wind power, major banks investing billions in clean energy. No matter what Al Gore's critics might say, there's no denying that the Nobel Prize winner's message has hit home. With rising consumer anxiety over global warming, businesses want to show that they're part of the solution, says Chris Hunter, a former energy manager at Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) who works for the environmental consulting firm GreenOrder. "Ten years ago, companies would call up and say I need a digital strategy.' Now, it's I need a green strategy.'"
Environmental stewardship has become a centerpiece of corporate image-crafting. General Electric (GE ) says it is spending nearly all of its multimillion-dollar corporate advertising budget on "Ecomagination," its collection of environmentally friendly products, even though they make up only 8% of the conglomerate's sales. Yahoo! (YHOO ) and Google (GOOG ) have proclaimed that by 2008 their offices and computer centers will become "carbon neutral." Fueling the public relations frenzy is the notion that preserving the climate is better than cost-effective. But Schendler, who only a few years ago considered himself a leading proponent of this theory, now offers a searing refutation of the belief that green corporate practices beget green of the pecuniary variety.
EMPTY BOASTING
Charismatic and well-connected among environmental executives, he has begun saying out loud what some whisper in private: Companies continue to assess most green initiatives with the same return-on-investment analysis they would use with any other capital project. And while some environmental advances pay for themselves in time, returns often aren't as swift or large as competing uses of corporate cash. That leads to green projects quietly withering on the vine. More important, and contrary to the alluring Lovins thesis, many major initiatives simply aren't money-savers. They come with daunting price tags that undercut the conviction that environmental salvation can be had on the cheap.
Schendler explains his confessional mood as the result of cumulative frustration: with foot-dragging colleagues, with himself for compromising, and with the entire green movement frothily sweeping through corporations in America and Europe. So far his candor hasn't cost him his job, though rival resorts have groused about Schendler to his bosses. His colleagues tolerate him with a combination of personal affection and periodic annoyance. "We have a very self-critical culture," says Mike Kaplan, Aspen Skiing's chief executive. "We wouldn't have Auden any other way." The company, Kaplan adds, has led its industry on the environmental front.
Schendler grits his teeth over the failure of modest proposals, such as his plan last year to refurbish one of the resort's oldest lodges to use less energy. He estimated the $100,000 project would have paid for itself in seven years through lower utility bills. But the money went for new ski lifts, snowmobiles, and other conventional purchases. "The availability of capital is not infinite," says Donald Schuster, vice-president for real estate.
Beaten back frequently, the environmental executive concedes that he made a mistake last year when he pushed the resort to make audacious green claims based on the purchase of "renewable energy credits." RECs are a type of financial arrangement that companies increasingly use to justify assertions that they have reduced their net contribution to global warming. But the most commonly used RECs, which are supposed to result in a third party's developing pollution-free power, turn out to be highly dubious (BW—Mar. 26). Aspen Skiing relied on RECs in declaring it had "offset 100% of our electricity use." Schendler now concedes the boast was empty.
Aspen Skiing is far from alone in making suspect claims of green virtue. Setting aside questionable renewable energy credits would wipe out the climate-saving assertions of dozens of major corporations celebrated for their environmental leadership. Office products retailer Staples (SPLS ) has used RECs to turn a 19% spike in emissions since 2001 into what it claims to be a 15% decline, the company's sustainability reports show. PepsiCo (PEP ) and Whole Foods Market have employed the credits to make declarations that every bit of pollution from electricity they use is negated. Johnson & Johnson has proclaimed a 17% reduction in carbon emissions since 1990, based largely on RECs. Without the credits, the pharmaceutical giant has seen a 24% increase, J&J executives acknowledge. "Recent corporate moves by J&J and others are pushing in the right direction, but it is still window dressing compared to the problem at hand," says Hunter, the former J&J manager.
Amid the overheated claims, some corporations have made legitimate environmental gains. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) helped spark the market for energy-saving fluorescent bulbs by giving them top billing, even though incandescent bulbs are more profitable. Office Depot overhauled lighting and energy in more than 600 stores, contributing to the company's real 10% decline in releases of heat-trapping gases. Dow Chemical (DOW ) and DuPont (DD ) have significantly trimmed their actual emission levels. But there is still reason to worry about long-term commitment. Dow says it invested $1 billion to help achieve reductions of 19% between 1994 and 2005. Because of technological challenges and costs, however, Dow predicts that additional cuts won't occur until 2025, 18 years from now.
Much corporate environmentalism boils down to misleading statistics and hype. To make real progress, genuine accomplishments will have to be sorted out from feel-good gestures. Schendler no longer views business as capable of the dramatic change he thought possible eight years ago, the sort of change that corporations have grown accustomed to boasting about. His own employer is "a perfect example of why this won't work," he says. "We've had a chance to cherry-pick 50 projects and get them done. But even if every ski company could do what we did, we'd still be nowhere."
`TRENCH WARFARE'
Auden Schendler felt nature's pull at the age of 14, when his uncle took him on a backpacking trip through the rugged Bob Marshall Wilderness in northwest Montana. Growing up in the scruffy New Jersey city of Hackensack, he always felt cramped and out of place. He escaped up the Atlantic coast to Maine, where he majored in environmental studies at Bowdoin College. "I became the person I wanted to be: a mountaineer, an outdoorsman." During this period he scaled Alaska's 20,300-foot Mount McKinley and made several trips up treacherous Mount Rainier in central Washington. On another adventure, he trekked alone on skis for nine days across a wintry Yosemite, sleeping in hand-carved snow caves. "I am at my happiest on a fall morning, in a high-mountain campsite, maybe 12,000 feet," he says. "The air is crisp and chilly, and some coffee is brewing on the campfire. What is better than that?"
After college he moved to Aspen and taught skiing and high school math. The state of Colorado provided his first paid environmental job, weatherizing the trailers of poor families to help them save energy. This involved crawling beneath flimsy homes, where he sometimes encountered the decomposing carcasses of raccoons. "It was gritty work," he says, "the trench warfare of climate change."
In 1997, he took a job at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) just outside Aspen, which Lovins had co-founded 15 years earlier. Lovins, a physicist by training, was collaborating with his then-wife, L. Hunter Lovins, and businessman Paul Hawken on a book called Natural Capitalism, which became a best-seller. By rethinking their operations and choosing materials wisely, the book argued, companies could produce far less pollution and earn more. "Auden is terrific," Lovins recalls of his "vigorous, smart, and dedicated" former employee, who did research for Natural Capitalism. An obsession with efficiency pervaded the institute: Schendler recalls being chastised for boiling water in the kitchen without a lid on the kettle. He idolized Lovins and went jogging with Hawken. "Instead of going to graduate school, I went to RMI," he says.
He heard in 1999 that Aspen Skiing, a complex of hotels and ski runs popular with wealthy vacationers, was looking for an environmental director. The job seemed a perfect fit. "When I left RMI, I felt that government was powerful but businesses were nimble enough and motivated enough by profit to make changes that we need," he says. "I was indoctrinated." The ski industry, which gorges on energy to create a fantasy of always-plentiful powdered snow and cozy alpine hideaways, offered an ideal place to put these abstractions into practice.
RESISTANCE FROM WITHIN
Aspen Skiing, privately owned by the Crown family of Chicago, which made billions on its stake in military contractor General Dynamics (GD ) and other enterprises, exudes an earnest concern about nature—not least because its business would melt away if temperatures rose just a few degrees. "My kids say: God, Dad, are we going to ski when we're your age?'" says Kaplan, the CEO. "I have to tell them: I don't know.'"
Then 29, Schendler received a genial welcome at Aspen Skiing's wood-paneled headquarters near the county airport. "Auden came with some great athletic credentials," recalls John Norton, then the chief operating officer. "He's a terrific kayaker and skier, and that's a guaranteed ice-breaker in a ski company." But when it came to spending the company's money, things became complicated.
He first took aim at the 90-room Little Nell Hotel. The luxurious lodge nestled at the base of Aspen Mountain devours so much electricity that Schendler assumed it would be simple to find efficiencies. He told its then-manager, Eric Calderon, he wanted to put fluorescent lightbulbs in all guest rooms. The new bulbs would last 10 times as long, use 75% less power, and pay for themselves in only two years. The answer was no. Calderon, who favors dapper blue blazers and chinos, worried that fluorescent light would suggest a waiting-room ambience, jeopardizing the establishment's five-star rating. "There's always a question of balance between environmental concerns and satisfying expectations of the clientele," he says.
Thwarted on guest rooms, Schendler switched to Little Nell's underground garage. Guests never saw it because valets park all cars. For $20,000, Schendler said he could replace energy-gobbling 175-watt incandescent light fixtures with fluorescent bulbs and save $10,000 a year. Unimpressed, Calderon again balked. If he had $20,000 extra, he would rather spend it on items guests would notice: fine Corinthian leather furniture or shiny new bathroom fixtures.
At the company's next senior management meeting, Schendler brought an unusual display to make his case for new garage lights. He had wired a stationary bicycle to show how much less energy fluorescent bulbs consume. Thirty managers watched as Schendler challenged a burly executive to hop on the bike. Sure enough, it took much more sweat to make several incandescent bulbs glow. But Schuster, the real estate chief, didn't believe the new lights would save money. "I was skeptical on the ROI [return on investment] calculations Auden had presented for the retrofit," Schuster recalls. "One of my concerns was that we were committing capital based on theoretical returns without any real opportunity for a look back on the actual returns."
It took Schendler two years to overcome resistance to the garage-light replacement, and then only after he secured a $5,000 grant from a local nonprofit. He acknowledges the strangeness of a corporation with annual revenue of about $200 million, according to industry veterans (the company declines to provide a figure), seeking charity to reduce its electricity use. With a hint of sarcasm, he notes: "This is the sort of radical action that's needed to get people over ROI thresholds."
WHEN BREAK-EVEN WON'T DO
Larger-scale versions of his lightbulb struggle are playing out at numerous other companies. Hailed as an environmental pioneer, FedEx (FDX ) says on its Web site that it is "committed to the use of innovations and technologies to minimize greenhouse gases." With 70,000 ground vehicles and 670 planes burning fuel, the world's largest shipper is a huge producer of heat-trapping gases. Back in 2003, FedEx announced that it would soon begin deploying clean-burning hybrid trucks at a rate of 3,000 a year, eventually sparing the atmosphere 250,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually from diesel-engine vehicles. "This program has the potential to replace the company's 30,000 medium-duty trucks over the next 10 years," FedEx announced at the time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded the effort a Clean Air Excellence prize in 2004.
Four years later, FedEx has purchased fewer than 100 hybrid trucks, or less than one-third of one percent of its fleet. At $70,000 and up, the hybrids cost at least 75% more than conventional trucks, although fuel savings should pay for the difference over the 10-year lifespan of the vehicles. FedEx, which reported record profits of $2 billion for the fiscal year that ended May 31, decided that breaking even over a decade wasn't the best use of company capital. "We do have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders," says environmental director Mitch Jackson. "We can't subsidize the development of this technology for our competitors."
Schendler faces the return-on-investment challenge on almost every proposal he makes. Earlier this year, he pushed his employer to bankroll a $1 million solar-energy farm on the outskirts of Aspen. Like most electricity consumers in the Rockies, Aspen Skiing's power comes primarily from coal-fired plants, which emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. With federal tax breaks aimed at encouraging clean energy, the football-field-size solar array might generate a paltry 6.5% return, meaning it would pay for itself in 15 years. It barely got approved, says Chief Financial Officer Matt Jones. "We put this together with duct tape and chewing gum."
Schendler's persistence eventually won him admirers even among executives who didn't agree with his entire agenda. "We were trying to run a very complex set of businesses—four ski areas, three hotels, two athletic complexes, and a golf course—but Auden never let us forget that he belonged in the family portrait," says Norton, the former COO and the man Schendler recruited for the bike-powered lightbulb demonstration. "Usually he elbowed in with good humor, but also sometimes with the grim single-mindedness that's the mantle of a true believer."
`I WAS GETTING KILLED'
Schendler, who is married and has two young children, ranks below top managers at Aspen Skiing but attends most of their important meetings. The company zealously guards salary amounts, and he won't reveal his, but a person familiar with Aspen Skiing estimates that he earns about $100,000 a year. Perpetually on the move, Schendler gets his hands into everything, fiddling with a boiler knob and inquiring why a building's lights were on the previous night. He sometimes seems self-conscious about his East Coast, elite-college pedigree, compensating with gestures like helping rewire a lodge's electrical circuits. Teasing follows him everywhere, he says. "I can't tell you how many times I've heard, Hey, Auden, I recycled a can today.'"
One of his proudest victories is the small hydro-power plant the company spent $150,000 in 2003 to install on one of its ski slopes. It's fed two months of the year by a stream that turns into a roaring creek when the snow melts. The other 10 months it's dormant. Inside the small hut containing the plant's steel turbine, he animatedly describes the hurdles overcome during construction: "We hit an underground gas line. I was over budget. I was getting killed." But it got done.
For all his hard work, however, Schendler began to feel a creeping disappointment. Combined, the hydro and solar projects eventually will generate less than 1% of the company's power needs. His colleagues felt they were stretching to accommodate him, but Schendler knew he was coming up short. Seeking to make an industry-leading gesture, he decided in 2005 to explore renewable energy credits.
Introduced at the beginning of the decade, RECs are supposed to marshal market forces behind wind and solar power. Developers of clean energy sell RECs, usually measured in megawatt hours of electricity, to buyers that want to counterbalance their pollution by funding environmentally friendly power. But often the REC trade seems like little more than the buying and selling of bragging rights, rather than incentives that lead to the construction of wind turbines or solar panels.
Schendler knew that RECs and similar financial transactions were swiftly growing in popularity, as more companies sought green credibility and REC brokers proliferated. He persuaded his superiors in 2006 to spend $42,000 a year, a 2% premium on the company's energy costs, to buy RECs at roughly $2 a megawatt hour. According to commonly accepted REC principles, this investment, less than a third of what it took to build the hydro plant, permitted Aspen Skiing to claim that it had offset all of its use of coal-burning energy.
Colleagues heaped praise on Schendler. In a press release, Pat O'Donnell, then the company's CEO, said: "This purchase represents our guiding principles in action." Accolades arrived from the EPA; local newspapers reported the feat. "It was seen as one of my biggest wins ever," Schendler says.
He spent hours thinking about how to describe the purchase of RECs for marketing purposes. The formulation he came up with was that Aspen Skiing had offset "100% of our electricity use with wind energy credits, keeping a million pounds of pollution out of the air." This wording was plastered on ski lifts, advertising brochures, and countless company e-mails.
But even as he helped launch this campaign, Schendler had a queasy feeling. At some level, he suspected the credits weren't causing any new windmills to be built. They weren't literally offsetting anything. He felt torn. "I'm well aware of what is right and what works and what matters," he says. "I'm also aware of brand positioning. Part of my job is to maintain [Aspen Skiing's] leadership." His industry "was going to do this in a big way. One small resort in California already had, and we needed to move. My solace was the educational value of the move. The discussions it would cause would be valuable, even if the RECs were not."
His prediction proved accurate. In the year and a half since his RECs purchase, more than 50 other ski resorts have made similar buys. No fewer than 28 claim to be "100% wind powered." Enticed by inexpensive green claims, companies in other industries have been equally enthusiastic. The top 25 REC purchasers have bought the equivalent of 6 million megawatt hours this year, nearly quadruple the volume from 2005, the EPA says.
Rather than enjoying his role as an REC pioneer, Schendler felt increasingly anxious. In private, he pushed REC brokers for hard evidence that new wind capacity was being built. Their evasiveness gnawed at him. He asked veterans in the renewable energy field whether his marketing message was legitimate. "They laughed at me," he says.
The trouble stems from the basic economics of RECs. Credits purchased at $2 a megawatt hour, the price Aspen Skiing and many other corporations pay, logically can't have much effect. Wind developers receive about $51 per megawatt hour for the electricity they sell to utilities. They get another $20 in federal tax breaks, and the equivalent of up to $20 more in accelerated depreciation of their capital equipment. Even many wind-power developers that stand to profit from RECs concede that producers making $91 a megawatt hour aren't going to expand production for another $2. "At this price, they're not very meaningful for the developer," says John Calaway, chief development officer for U.S. wind power at Babcock & Brown, an investment bank that funds new wind projects. "It doesn't support building something that wouldn't otherwise be built."
BAFFLEMENT AND IRRITATION
Schendler isn't the only environmental executive aware of the problem. In 2006, Johnson & Johnson spent $1 million on credits it says are equivalent to 400,000 tons of emissions. Based on this purchase, the company claimed to have shrunk its contribution to global warming by 17% since 1990. The World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups have praised J&J, and the EPA gave the company a Green Power award in 2006. Asked about the doubts surrounding RECs, Dennis Canavan, the company's senior director of global energy, concedes that the credits "aren't ideal." They don't really reduce J&J's pollution, he says, and he hopes the company eventually abandons them. Still, he insists that "somewhere along the line, RECs do encourage new projects." He adds: "For the time being, this is the system available to us to offset CO2."
However, some companies employ more direct methods, like building substantial clean energy capacity themselves. In August, Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, Mass., turned on a new wind turbine standing 386 feet tall and capable of providing half of the resort's electricity. The project took three years to complete and cost $4 million.
Many larger corporations, however, defend their lower-cost approach. Mark Buckley, vice-president of environmental affairs at Staples, defends RECs, saying they "have clearly sent the right signal to the market." His counterpart at PepsiCo (PEP ), Rob Schasel, agrees, adding, "Absolutely, we're changing what's going into the atmosphere." Whole Foods Market (WFMI ) declined to comment.
This spring Schendler concluded that he had to reverse course, persuade his employer to back away from the renewable energy credits he had endorsed just months earlier, and favor more meaningful green projects. His colleagues reacted with bafflement and irritation. "Auden, you are the most confusing human being I have ever encountered," senior marketing manager Steve Metcalf wrote in an e-mail in April. "You have placed on us the responsibility of getting the environment message out—your message—as a company-wide endeavor. We have responded to your bidding and environmental passion with a gusto on the verge of maniacal. As mentioned, you are confusing to the point of complete exhaustion."
Schendler replied: "Relax, brah. I enormously appreciate all the support.... We're on the edge of this thing, figuring it out. If it were simple and easy, someone would have done it already."
THE CONFLICTED CRITIC
The company will continue to buy RECs through at least 2008, when its current contract expires. Executives say they're reluctant to stop any sooner, because they don't want to appear to be backsliding on the environment when competitors claim to be entirely wind powered. The company still touts its RECs purchases in some marketing material.
Schendler, meanwhile, has become a prominent critic of RECs, a potentially confusing role, since his employer buys them. In an April letter to the Center for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit group in San Francisco that certifies credits, he said that RECs have as much effect on the development of new renewable-energy projects as would trading "rocks, IOUs, or pinecones." That statement, which inevitably whizzed around the Internet, stung some in the ski industry who interpreted it as an attack. Schendler's immediate boss, General Counsel Dave Bellack, has heard from competitors asking that he stifle Schendler. Bellack has declined.
Now simultaneously an insider and an outsider in corporate environmental circles, Schendler relishes the notoriety. "I don't think I'm seen as a team player in this industry," he says, "but I don't care. This issue is so much bigger than just the ski industry." In March he told the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources that companies won't make serious progress without regulation of carbon emissions—a departure from his earlier faith that abundant, profitable green projects will transform the way business operate.
His former mentor Lovins says Schendler could find further cost-saving energy efficiencies with more support from his superiors. But this mind-set, Schendler warns, could influence companies to pursue exclusively projects with quick payoffs: "The idea that green is fun, it's easy, and it's profitable is dangerous. This is hard work. It's messy. It's not always profitable. And companies have to get off the mark and start actually doing stuff."
=======================================================================
originally posted at:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Little Green Lies
By Ben Elgin
The sweet notion that making a company environmentally friendly can be not just cost-effective but profitable is going up in smoke. Meet the man wielding the torch
podcast
COVER STORY PODCAST
Auden Schendler learned about corporate environmentalism directly from the prophet of the movement. In the late 1990s, Schendler was working as a junior researcher at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank in Aspen led by Amory Lovins, legendary author of the idea that by "going green," companies can increase profits while saving the planet. As Lovins often told Schendler and others at the institute, boosting energy efficiency and reducing harmful emissions constitute not just a free lunch but "a lunch you're paid to eat."
Slide Show >>
Inspired by this marvelous promise, Schendler took a job in 1999 at Aspen Skiing Co., becoming one of the first of a new breed: the in-house "corporate sustainability" advocate. Eight years later, it takes him six hours crisscrossing the Aspen region by car and foot to show a visitor some of the ways he has helped the posh, 800-employee resort blunt its contribution to global warming. Schendler, 37, a tanned and muscular mountain climber, clambers atop a storage shed to point out sleek solar panels on an employee-housing rooftop. He hikes down a stony slope for a view of the resort's miniature power plant, fueled by the rushing waters of a mountain creek. The company features its environmental credentials in its marketing and has decorated its headquarters with green trophies and plaques. Last year Time honored Schendler as a "Climate Crusader" in an article accompanied by a half-page photo of the jut-jawed executive standing amid snow-covered evergreens.
But at the end of this arid late-summer afternoon, Schendler is feeling anything but triumphant. He pulls a company sedan to the side of a dirt road and turns off the motor. "Who are we kidding?" he says, finally. Despite all his exertions, the resort's greenhouse-gas emissions continue to creep up year after year. More vacationers mean larger lodgings burning more power. Warmer winters require tons of additional artificial snow, another energy drain. "I've succeeded in doing a lot of sexy projects yet utterly failed in what I set out to do," Schendler says. "How do you really green your company? It's almost f------ impossible."
Barely a day goes by without a prominent corporation loudly announcing its latest green accomplishments: retailers retrofitting stores to cut energy consumption, utilities developing pristine wind power, major banks investing billions in clean energy. No matter what Al Gore's critics might say, there's no denying that the Nobel Prize winner's message has hit home. With rising consumer anxiety over global warming, businesses want to show that they're part of the solution, says Chris Hunter, a former energy manager at Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) who works for the environmental consulting firm GreenOrder. "Ten years ago, companies would call up and say I need a digital strategy.' Now, it's I need a green strategy.'"
Environmental stewardship has become a centerpiece of corporate image-crafting. General Electric (GE ) says it is spending nearly all of its multimillion-dollar corporate advertising budget on "Ecomagination," its collection of environmentally friendly products, even though they make up only 8% of the conglomerate's sales. Yahoo! (YHOO ) and Google (GOOG ) have proclaimed that by 2008 their offices and computer centers will become "carbon neutral." Fueling the public relations frenzy is the notion that preserving the climate is better than cost-effective. But Schendler, who only a few years ago considered himself a leading proponent of this theory, now offers a searing refutation of the belief that green corporate practices beget green of the pecuniary variety.
EMPTY BOASTING
Charismatic and well-connected among environmental executives, he has begun saying out loud what some whisper in private: Companies continue to assess most green initiatives with the same return-on-investment analysis they would use with any other capital project. And while some environmental advances pay for themselves in time, returns often aren't as swift or large as competing uses of corporate cash. That leads to green projects quietly withering on the vine. More important, and contrary to the alluring Lovins thesis, many major initiatives simply aren't money-savers. They come with daunting price tags that undercut the conviction that environmental salvation can be had on the cheap.
Schendler explains his confessional mood as the result of cumulative frustration: with foot-dragging colleagues, with himself for compromising, and with the entire green movement frothily sweeping through corporations in America and Europe. So far his candor hasn't cost him his job, though rival resorts have groused about Schendler to his bosses. His colleagues tolerate him with a combination of personal affection and periodic annoyance. "We have a very self-critical culture," says Mike Kaplan, Aspen Skiing's chief executive. "We wouldn't have Auden any other way." The company, Kaplan adds, has led its industry on the environmental front.
Schendler grits his teeth over the failure of modest proposals, such as his plan last year to refurbish one of the resort's oldest lodges to use less energy. He estimated the $100,000 project would have paid for itself in seven years through lower utility bills. But the money went for new ski lifts, snowmobiles, and other conventional purchases. "The availability of capital is not infinite," says Donald Schuster, vice-president for real estate.
Beaten back frequently, the environmental executive concedes that he made a mistake last year when he pushed the resort to make audacious green claims based on the purchase of "renewable energy credits." RECs are a type of financial arrangement that companies increasingly use to justify assertions that they have reduced their net contribution to global warming. But the most commonly used RECs, which are supposed to result in a third party's developing pollution-free power, turn out to be highly dubious (BW—Mar. 26). Aspen Skiing relied on RECs in declaring it had "offset 100% of our electricity use." Schendler now concedes the boast was empty.
Aspen Skiing is far from alone in making suspect claims of green virtue. Setting aside questionable renewable energy credits would wipe out the climate-saving assertions of dozens of major corporations celebrated for their environmental leadership. Office products retailer Staples (SPLS ) has used RECs to turn a 19% spike in emissions since 2001 into what it claims to be a 15% decline, the company's sustainability reports show. PepsiCo (PEP ) and Whole Foods Market have employed the credits to make declarations that every bit of pollution from electricity they use is negated. Johnson & Johnson has proclaimed a 17% reduction in carbon emissions since 1990, based largely on RECs. Without the credits, the pharmaceutical giant has seen a 24% increase, J&J executives acknowledge. "Recent corporate moves by J&J and others are pushing in the right direction, but it is still window dressing compared to the problem at hand," says Hunter, the former J&J manager.
Amid the overheated claims, some corporations have made legitimate environmental gains. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) helped spark the market for energy-saving fluorescent bulbs by giving them top billing, even though incandescent bulbs are more profitable. Office Depot overhauled lighting and energy in more than 600 stores, contributing to the company's real 10% decline in releases of heat-trapping gases. Dow Chemical (DOW ) and DuPont (DD ) have significantly trimmed their actual emission levels. But there is still reason to worry about long-term commitment. Dow says it invested $1 billion to help achieve reductions of 19% between 1994 and 2005. Because of technological challenges and costs, however, Dow predicts that additional cuts won't occur until 2025, 18 years from now.
Much corporate environmentalism boils down to misleading statistics and hype. To make real progress, genuine accomplishments will have to be sorted out from feel-good gestures. Schendler no longer views business as capable of the dramatic change he thought possible eight years ago, the sort of change that corporations have grown accustomed to boasting about. His own employer is "a perfect example of why this won't work," he says. "We've had a chance to cherry-pick 50 projects and get them done. But even if every ski company could do what we did, we'd still be nowhere."
`TRENCH WARFARE'
Auden Schendler felt nature's pull at the age of 14, when his uncle took him on a backpacking trip through the rugged Bob Marshall Wilderness in northwest Montana. Growing up in the scruffy New Jersey city of Hackensack, he always felt cramped and out of place. He escaped up the Atlantic coast to Maine, where he majored in environmental studies at Bowdoin College. "I became the person I wanted to be: a mountaineer, an outdoorsman." During this period he scaled Alaska's 20,300-foot Mount McKinley and made several trips up treacherous Mount Rainier in central Washington. On another adventure, he trekked alone on skis for nine days across a wintry Yosemite, sleeping in hand-carved snow caves. "I am at my happiest on a fall morning, in a high-mountain campsite, maybe 12,000 feet," he says. "The air is crisp and chilly, and some coffee is brewing on the campfire. What is better than that?"
After college he moved to Aspen and taught skiing and high school math. The state of Colorado provided his first paid environmental job, weatherizing the trailers of poor families to help them save energy. This involved crawling beneath flimsy homes, where he sometimes encountered the decomposing carcasses of raccoons. "It was gritty work," he says, "the trench warfare of climate change."
In 1997, he took a job at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) just outside Aspen, which Lovins had co-founded 15 years earlier. Lovins, a physicist by training, was collaborating with his then-wife, L. Hunter Lovins, and businessman Paul Hawken on a book called Natural Capitalism, which became a best-seller. By rethinking their operations and choosing materials wisely, the book argued, companies could produce far less pollution and earn more. "Auden is terrific," Lovins recalls of his "vigorous, smart, and dedicated" former employee, who did research for Natural Capitalism. An obsession with efficiency pervaded the institute: Schendler recalls being chastised for boiling water in the kitchen without a lid on the kettle. He idolized Lovins and went jogging with Hawken. "Instead of going to graduate school, I went to RMI," he says.
He heard in 1999 that Aspen Skiing, a complex of hotels and ski runs popular with wealthy vacationers, was looking for an environmental director. The job seemed a perfect fit. "When I left RMI, I felt that government was powerful but businesses were nimble enough and motivated enough by profit to make changes that we need," he says. "I was indoctrinated." The ski industry, which gorges on energy to create a fantasy of always-plentiful powdered snow and cozy alpine hideaways, offered an ideal place to put these abstractions into practice.
RESISTANCE FROM WITHIN
Aspen Skiing, privately owned by the Crown family of Chicago, which made billions on its stake in military contractor General Dynamics (GD ) and other enterprises, exudes an earnest concern about nature—not least because its business would melt away if temperatures rose just a few degrees. "My kids say: God, Dad, are we going to ski when we're your age?'" says Kaplan, the CEO. "I have to tell them: I don't know.'"
Then 29, Schendler received a genial welcome at Aspen Skiing's wood-paneled headquarters near the county airport. "Auden came with some great athletic credentials," recalls John Norton, then the chief operating officer. "He's a terrific kayaker and skier, and that's a guaranteed ice-breaker in a ski company." But when it came to spending the company's money, things became complicated.
He first took aim at the 90-room Little Nell Hotel. The luxurious lodge nestled at the base of Aspen Mountain devours so much electricity that Schendler assumed it would be simple to find efficiencies. He told its then-manager, Eric Calderon, he wanted to put fluorescent lightbulbs in all guest rooms. The new bulbs would last 10 times as long, use 75% less power, and pay for themselves in only two years. The answer was no. Calderon, who favors dapper blue blazers and chinos, worried that fluorescent light would suggest a waiting-room ambience, jeopardizing the establishment's five-star rating. "There's always a question of balance between environmental concerns and satisfying expectations of the clientele," he says.
Thwarted on guest rooms, Schendler switched to Little Nell's underground garage. Guests never saw it because valets park all cars. For $20,000, Schendler said he could replace energy-gobbling 175-watt incandescent light fixtures with fluorescent bulbs and save $10,000 a year. Unimpressed, Calderon again balked. If he had $20,000 extra, he would rather spend it on items guests would notice: fine Corinthian leather furniture or shiny new bathroom fixtures.
At the company's next senior management meeting, Schendler brought an unusual display to make his case for new garage lights. He had wired a stationary bicycle to show how much less energy fluorescent bulbs consume. Thirty managers watched as Schendler challenged a burly executive to hop on the bike. Sure enough, it took much more sweat to make several incandescent bulbs glow. But Schuster, the real estate chief, didn't believe the new lights would save money. "I was skeptical on the ROI [return on investment] calculations Auden had presented for the retrofit," Schuster recalls. "One of my concerns was that we were committing capital based on theoretical returns without any real opportunity for a look back on the actual returns."
It took Schendler two years to overcome resistance to the garage-light replacement, and then only after he secured a $5,000 grant from a local nonprofit. He acknowledges the strangeness of a corporation with annual revenue of about $200 million, according to industry veterans (the company declines to provide a figure), seeking charity to reduce its electricity use. With a hint of sarcasm, he notes: "This is the sort of radical action that's needed to get people over ROI thresholds."
WHEN BREAK-EVEN WON'T DO
Larger-scale versions of his lightbulb struggle are playing out at numerous other companies. Hailed as an environmental pioneer, FedEx (FDX ) says on its Web site that it is "committed to the use of innovations and technologies to minimize greenhouse gases." With 70,000 ground vehicles and 670 planes burning fuel, the world's largest shipper is a huge producer of heat-trapping gases. Back in 2003, FedEx announced that it would soon begin deploying clean-burning hybrid trucks at a rate of 3,000 a year, eventually sparing the atmosphere 250,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually from diesel-engine vehicles. "This program has the potential to replace the company's 30,000 medium-duty trucks over the next 10 years," FedEx announced at the time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded the effort a Clean Air Excellence prize in 2004.
Four years later, FedEx has purchased fewer than 100 hybrid trucks, or less than one-third of one percent of its fleet. At $70,000 and up, the hybrids cost at least 75% more than conventional trucks, although fuel savings should pay for the difference over the 10-year lifespan of the vehicles. FedEx, which reported record profits of $2 billion for the fiscal year that ended May 31, decided that breaking even over a decade wasn't the best use of company capital. "We do have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders," says environmental director Mitch Jackson. "We can't subsidize the development of this technology for our competitors."
Schendler faces the return-on-investment challenge on almost every proposal he makes. Earlier this year, he pushed his employer to bankroll a $1 million solar-energy farm on the outskirts of Aspen. Like most electricity consumers in the Rockies, Aspen Skiing's power comes primarily from coal-fired plants, which emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. With federal tax breaks aimed at encouraging clean energy, the football-field-size solar array might generate a paltry 6.5% return, meaning it would pay for itself in 15 years. It barely got approved, says Chief Financial Officer Matt Jones. "We put this together with duct tape and chewing gum."
Schendler's persistence eventually won him admirers even among executives who didn't agree with his entire agenda. "We were trying to run a very complex set of businesses—four ski areas, three hotels, two athletic complexes, and a golf course—but Auden never let us forget that he belonged in the family portrait," says Norton, the former COO and the man Schendler recruited for the bike-powered lightbulb demonstration. "Usually he elbowed in with good humor, but also sometimes with the grim single-mindedness that's the mantle of a true believer."
`I WAS GETTING KILLED'
Schendler, who is married and has two young children, ranks below top managers at Aspen Skiing but attends most of their important meetings. The company zealously guards salary amounts, and he won't reveal his, but a person familiar with Aspen Skiing estimates that he earns about $100,000 a year. Perpetually on the move, Schendler gets his hands into everything, fiddling with a boiler knob and inquiring why a building's lights were on the previous night. He sometimes seems self-conscious about his East Coast, elite-college pedigree, compensating with gestures like helping rewire a lodge's electrical circuits. Teasing follows him everywhere, he says. "I can't tell you how many times I've heard, Hey, Auden, I recycled a can today.'"
One of his proudest victories is the small hydro-power plant the company spent $150,000 in 2003 to install on one of its ski slopes. It's fed two months of the year by a stream that turns into a roaring creek when the snow melts. The other 10 months it's dormant. Inside the small hut containing the plant's steel turbine, he animatedly describes the hurdles overcome during construction: "We hit an underground gas line. I was over budget. I was getting killed." But it got done.
For all his hard work, however, Schendler began to feel a creeping disappointment. Combined, the hydro and solar projects eventually will generate less than 1% of the company's power needs. His colleagues felt they were stretching to accommodate him, but Schendler knew he was coming up short. Seeking to make an industry-leading gesture, he decided in 2005 to explore renewable energy credits.
Introduced at the beginning of the decade, RECs are supposed to marshal market forces behind wind and solar power. Developers of clean energy sell RECs, usually measured in megawatt hours of electricity, to buyers that want to counterbalance their pollution by funding environmentally friendly power. But often the REC trade seems like little more than the buying and selling of bragging rights, rather than incentives that lead to the construction of wind turbines or solar panels.
Schendler knew that RECs and similar financial transactions were swiftly growing in popularity, as more companies sought green credibility and REC brokers proliferated. He persuaded his superiors in 2006 to spend $42,000 a year, a 2% premium on the company's energy costs, to buy RECs at roughly $2 a megawatt hour. According to commonly accepted REC principles, this investment, less than a third of what it took to build the hydro plant, permitted Aspen Skiing to claim that it had offset all of its use of coal-burning energy.
Colleagues heaped praise on Schendler. In a press release, Pat O'Donnell, then the company's CEO, said: "This purchase represents our guiding principles in action." Accolades arrived from the EPA; local newspapers reported the feat. "It was seen as one of my biggest wins ever," Schendler says.
He spent hours thinking about how to describe the purchase of RECs for marketing purposes. The formulation he came up with was that Aspen Skiing had offset "100% of our electricity use with wind energy credits, keeping a million pounds of pollution out of the air." This wording was plastered on ski lifts, advertising brochures, and countless company e-mails.
But even as he helped launch this campaign, Schendler had a queasy feeling. At some level, he suspected the credits weren't causing any new windmills to be built. They weren't literally offsetting anything. He felt torn. "I'm well aware of what is right and what works and what matters," he says. "I'm also aware of brand positioning. Part of my job is to maintain [Aspen Skiing's] leadership." His industry "was going to do this in a big way. One small resort in California already had, and we needed to move. My solace was the educational value of the move. The discussions it would cause would be valuable, even if the RECs were not."
His prediction proved accurate. In the year and a half since his RECs purchase, more than 50 other ski resorts have made similar buys. No fewer than 28 claim to be "100% wind powered." Enticed by inexpensive green claims, companies in other industries have been equally enthusiastic. The top 25 REC purchasers have bought the equivalent of 6 million megawatt hours this year, nearly quadruple the volume from 2005, the EPA says.
Rather than enjoying his role as an REC pioneer, Schendler felt increasingly anxious. In private, he pushed REC brokers for hard evidence that new wind capacity was being built. Their evasiveness gnawed at him. He asked veterans in the renewable energy field whether his marketing message was legitimate. "They laughed at me," he says.
The trouble stems from the basic economics of RECs. Credits purchased at $2 a megawatt hour, the price Aspen Skiing and many other corporations pay, logically can't have much effect. Wind developers receive about $51 per megawatt hour for the electricity they sell to utilities. They get another $20 in federal tax breaks, and the equivalent of up to $20 more in accelerated depreciation of their capital equipment. Even many wind-power developers that stand to profit from RECs concede that producers making $91 a megawatt hour aren't going to expand production for another $2. "At this price, they're not very meaningful for the developer," says John Calaway, chief development officer for U.S. wind power at Babcock & Brown, an investment bank that funds new wind projects. "It doesn't support building something that wouldn't otherwise be built."
BAFFLEMENT AND IRRITATION
Schendler isn't the only environmental executive aware of the problem. In 2006, Johnson & Johnson spent $1 million on credits it says are equivalent to 400,000 tons of emissions. Based on this purchase, the company claimed to have shrunk its contribution to global warming by 17% since 1990. The World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups have praised J&J, and the EPA gave the company a Green Power award in 2006. Asked about the doubts surrounding RECs, Dennis Canavan, the company's senior director of global energy, concedes that the credits "aren't ideal." They don't really reduce J&J's pollution, he says, and he hopes the company eventually abandons them. Still, he insists that "somewhere along the line, RECs do encourage new projects." He adds: "For the time being, this is the system available to us to offset CO2."
However, some companies employ more direct methods, like building substantial clean energy capacity themselves. In August, Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, Mass., turned on a new wind turbine standing 386 feet tall and capable of providing half of the resort's electricity. The project took three years to complete and cost $4 million.
Many larger corporations, however, defend their lower-cost approach. Mark Buckley, vice-president of environmental affairs at Staples, defends RECs, saying they "have clearly sent the right signal to the market." His counterpart at PepsiCo (PEP ), Rob Schasel, agrees, adding, "Absolutely, we're changing what's going into the atmosphere." Whole Foods Market (WFMI ) declined to comment.
This spring Schendler concluded that he had to reverse course, persuade his employer to back away from the renewable energy credits he had endorsed just months earlier, and favor more meaningful green projects. His colleagues reacted with bafflement and irritation. "Auden, you are the most confusing human being I have ever encountered," senior marketing manager Steve Metcalf wrote in an e-mail in April. "You have placed on us the responsibility of getting the environment message out—your message—as a company-wide endeavor. We have responded to your bidding and environmental passion with a gusto on the verge of maniacal. As mentioned, you are confusing to the point of complete exhaustion."
Schendler replied: "Relax, brah. I enormously appreciate all the support.... We're on the edge of this thing, figuring it out. If it were simple and easy, someone would have done it already."
THE CONFLICTED CRITIC
The company will continue to buy RECs through at least 2008, when its current contract expires. Executives say they're reluctant to stop any sooner, because they don't want to appear to be backsliding on the environment when competitors claim to be entirely wind powered. The company still touts its RECs purchases in some marketing material.
Schendler, meanwhile, has become a prominent critic of RECs, a potentially confusing role, since his employer buys them. In an April letter to the Center for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit group in San Francisco that certifies credits, he said that RECs have as much effect on the development of new renewable-energy projects as would trading "rocks, IOUs, or pinecones." That statement, which inevitably whizzed around the Internet, stung some in the ski industry who interpreted it as an attack. Schendler's immediate boss, General Counsel Dave Bellack, has heard from competitors asking that he stifle Schendler. Bellack has declined.
Now simultaneously an insider and an outsider in corporate environmental circles, Schendler relishes the notoriety. "I don't think I'm seen as a team player in this industry," he says, "but I don't care. This issue is so much bigger than just the ski industry." In March he told the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources that companies won't make serious progress without regulation of carbon emissions—a departure from his earlier faith that abundant, profitable green projects will transform the way business operate.
His former mentor Lovins says Schendler could find further cost-saving energy efficiencies with more support from his superiors. But this mind-set, Schendler warns, could influence companies to pursue exclusively projects with quick payoffs: "The idea that green is fun, it's easy, and it's profitable is dangerous. This is hard work. It's messy. It's not always profitable. And companies have to get off the mark and start actually doing stuff."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)