Back in May 2013, two environmental activists took direct action against a coal company by blocking a 40,000 ton coal shipment with their lobster boat, the Henry David T., successfully preventing a shipment to the largest coal in New England. They were brought to court and charged with disturbing the peace, conspiracy to disturb the peace, negligent operation of a motor vessel and failure to act to avoid a collision of a boat. If convicted they would be facing years in prison.
The court decided to allow the activists to use 'necessity' as a defense, this would allow them to claim that they had no choice but to break the law in order to prevent an even more overwhelming harm from happening. This was big, it was the first time that the courts had allowed the necessity defense when it comes to environmental activism. In this case the charges were all reduced to civil infractions, because the defendants were planning on calling in climate change experts, like Bill McKibben, to argue their case. The prosecutors didn't like the idea of looking stupid if they tried to argue against climate change experts, and the court didn't like the idea of the reality of climate change being downplayed.
So the case never went to trial, and necessity was never able to be used as a defense, meaning this case didn't set any actual precedent. BUT, this case did set a social precedent, meaning that it could be more acceptable for judges to lean in favor of addressing climate change issues.
Another climate change related lawsuit has been filed more recently. As part of the divestment movement efforts, 7 law students and undergraduates filed a lawsuit against Harvard Corporation, which is the governing body that makes Harvard College's investment decisions and includes the college's president and fellows. The students are suing for the "mismanagement of charitable funds" and is partly invoking a tort for the "intentional investment in abnormally dangerous activities". This tort has no precedent to stand on, but the complaint itself is standing on the precedent that allows "those with special interests" in an organization to bring claims concerning mismanagement of its funds.
This case is going to make a big impact to either hurt or strengthen the divestment movement, depending on whether the court will allow students to be considered "those with special interests" and if the tort claim is also allowed. It could be argued that because the necessity defense was allowed to prevent the even bigger harm of coal contributing to climate change, then investing in coal and other fossil fuels should be argued to be an abnormally dangerous activity.
Could the social precedent help bring actual precedent to the divestment lawsuit?
Depending on how the divestment lawsuit is decided it could spur a rise in activism and lawsuits against investment groups. Is this the start of a judicial shift in decisions when it comes to climate change? This kind of seems like the writing on the wall, that there is hope to finally start holding the fossil fuel industry accountable.
Word Count: 513
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Role of the (Bought) Media: Function vs Purpose
The role of the news media is to construct the reality of events to the public, rather educate the public on what is going on in society in order to stay informed citizens. This allows citizens to be aware of events and understand what is going on in the country, how society is being ran, and be up on the current political debates in order to carry out the civic duty of partaking in our democracy.
But the reality is that the news media has a conflict of interest. Their purpose should be to carry out that role, by having their function be to provide coverage of the news in an unbiased and balanced way. But because the news media is now privately owned and is incorporated, they now function to make a profit. Since they raise revenue by their ratings and through advertising, they are largely influenced by industry, making their purpose whatever appeases their financial backing.
In The Battle for the Control of Reality, Ross Gelbspan explains how the oil and coal industries have spent millions waging a propaganda campaign through the media and through politicians to downplay the threat of climate change. This is through lobbyists and through funding climate skeptics.
This is part of the "money-media election complex" of vested interests pay the right people to keep up the image of their industry and keep the right policies in play. The media and officials are pretty much bought through help getting votes and ratings.
That is why FoxNews' policy of 'fair and balanced' coverage is a false balance. Instead of giving a proportionate amount of coverage to what is truthfully being debated, they give equal air time to both sides of the argument on climate change. By giving 98% of the scientific community that believes in and supports the science that proves climate change the same amount of coverage as the opposing 2% of the scientific community that are climate skeptics, they are promoting the fossil fuel industry's propaganda and confusing the public.
Now I understand that the facts about climate change is very depressing and nobody wants to end a discussion on TV on such a grim note, but it's only going to stay this grim if the new media doesn't inform the public and allow for a proper debate in our democracy.
Our country might want to follow other countries' example by having their news be publicly owned and funded. Our news media could even learn something from the FICTIONAL newstation in HBO's 'Newsroom', where they decide to actually covers the news despite the effect it has on their ratings. They choose this because they chose to change their purpose from making a profit to bringing integrity and truth back to the news.
Word Count: 459
Bypassing Congressional Action: Obama's Climate Pact
Mike Tidwell makes a strong argument, in The Global Warming Reader, that legal change is needed in order to push our country towards progressive change, giving the civil rights movement as an example of how a grassroots movement worked in sync with President Lyndon B. Johnson's efforts resulting in Congress passing new laws.
He also went on to argue that most people today want carbon emission reductions to be mandated through laws, but that Congress isn't budging, so the people must call their government to action alongside leadership from President Obama.
This semester I've learned a lot about just exactly how ridiculous Congress acts and why, they don't want to work across party lines and compromise. There's even a 'Gang of 6' among Republicans in government that have the sole goal of working to oppose anything Obama suggests. The polarization among our political parties and the corruption involved from our 'pay-to-play' system has made passing any environmental or climate change regulation basically impossible.
That's why if businesses through Transition movements and other community grassroots groups ban together to just voluntarily make changes in the economy and business on their own, without any need for laws to pass through Congress, then that could be promising. It would bypass a major kink in our system by not requiring bi-partisan politics or for citizens to vote.
The other end that Tidwell brought up, leadership from Obama to pressure Congress... This is what made me so nervous about the November elections.
I though it was interesting Tidwell uses Johnson as an example because President Lyndon B. Johnson had outline six principles on how to successfully pass legislation. Obama seemed to follow those same principles with healthcare reform, and was able to sign the Affordable Care Act into law. This had me concerned that Obama might have used up a lot of his good graces on healthcare reform, leaving climate change on a back burner. Now that Democrats lost the majority, I was afraid that Obama would try to get some other issues resolved by conceding on environmental concerns. My initial thought after the election was 'there goes the climate".
Instead, Obama is being anything BUT a lame duck through the end of his term. He met with China and was able to make a Climate Pact (I've also seen it be called the Obama's Climate Accord), an agreement with China to partner closely on plans to fight climate change. This is HUGE, because now oppositions to climate change regulation in Congress won't be able to use the argument that the US shouldn't take any action if China and India aren't doing anything. (Which is a childish argument to begin with if you ask me.)
I hope I'm right by thinking that Obama isn't caring about playing nice anymore since he can't run for the next term, and has decided to JUST GO FOR IT. It has been pretty cool to watch a 'lame duck' take charge on immigration, net neutrality, and this Climate Pact. I hope that when he is out of office these efforts to make a difference won't have been in vain.
Word Count: 520
He also went on to argue that most people today want carbon emission reductions to be mandated through laws, but that Congress isn't budging, so the people must call their government to action alongside leadership from President Obama.
This semester I've learned a lot about just exactly how ridiculous Congress acts and why, they don't want to work across party lines and compromise. There's even a 'Gang of 6' among Republicans in government that have the sole goal of working to oppose anything Obama suggests. The polarization among our political parties and the corruption involved from our 'pay-to-play' system has made passing any environmental or climate change regulation basically impossible.
That's why if businesses through Transition movements and other community grassroots groups ban together to just voluntarily make changes in the economy and business on their own, without any need for laws to pass through Congress, then that could be promising. It would bypass a major kink in our system by not requiring bi-partisan politics or for citizens to vote.
The other end that Tidwell brought up, leadership from Obama to pressure Congress... This is what made me so nervous about the November elections.
I though it was interesting Tidwell uses Johnson as an example because President Lyndon B. Johnson had outline six principles on how to successfully pass legislation. Obama seemed to follow those same principles with healthcare reform, and was able to sign the Affordable Care Act into law. This had me concerned that Obama might have used up a lot of his good graces on healthcare reform, leaving climate change on a back burner. Now that Democrats lost the majority, I was afraid that Obama would try to get some other issues resolved by conceding on environmental concerns. My initial thought after the election was 'there goes the climate".
Instead, Obama is being anything BUT a lame duck through the end of his term. He met with China and was able to make a Climate Pact (I've also seen it be called the Obama's Climate Accord), an agreement with China to partner closely on plans to fight climate change. This is HUGE, because now oppositions to climate change regulation in Congress won't be able to use the argument that the US shouldn't take any action if China and India aren't doing anything. (Which is a childish argument to begin with if you ask me.)
I hope I'm right by thinking that Obama isn't caring about playing nice anymore since he can't run for the next term, and has decided to JUST GO FOR IT. It has been pretty cool to watch a 'lame duck' take charge on immigration, net neutrality, and this Climate Pact. I hope that when he is out of office these efforts to make a difference won't have been in vain.
Word Count: 520
Strategies for Business to Reduce Their Carbon Footprint
There are a multitude of ways a business can reduce their carbon footprint. You probably won't find it surprising that I suggest looking at the business as a system to get an understanding of how energy is incorporated. That means a breakdown of elements, interconnections, function, and purpose as well as looking for feedback loops.
Businesses could decide to source their materials and services, such as landscapers, linen services, etc., locally for a number of reasons, like they know the other businesses personally or they are choosing to support the local economy. Another reason would be that it would reduce the amount of energy needed to transport the goods and services they purchase by reducing the distance of the sources. With food this distance has become known as 'food miles', but it applies to other goods and services as well.
I would think that all businesses could do a Life-Cycle Analysis of their product and even the processes by which they provide their services. Life-Cycle Analysis, or LCA, is the analyzing of each step and process into making a product or providing a service to note energy use, efficiency, materials use, pollution creation, and effect (if any) on social issues that the product or service requires. Take a restaurant for instance. The LCA of providing a meal would mean noting the kind of food being used and how it was produced, the amount of miles driven to get the food delivered to the restaurant, the means by which the food is prepped, stored, cooked, and disposed of, etc. A LCA can be varied in how it's carried out, usually depending on what the business wants to be held accountable and how stringent they are willing to make their standards. Like would they include whether or not the servers at the restaurant are well paid in the LCA of providing the meal?
Then there's the actual physical grounds and buildings that make the business and how they are being managed. Developing a better sealed building envelope is a great way to cut down on the amount of energy needed to control the indoor environment. If the business has a lot of land, then how it is managed and with what materials matters. For example, most fertilizers are fossil-fuel based, adding to the business's carbon footprint.
There's a ton more information out there to advice business on how to become more energy efficient and to reduce their carbon footprint. However, unless the business has made their mission statement to do so, which means backing from the owners and managers, then trying to input these changes in a business is usually a hard sell. It has been the tendency of business to want to gain good PR for their efforts, which means a "sexy" installation of solar panels or something else that would serve as a constant reminder of the business's goodwill. It can be hard convincing higher ups and implementing these changes because to most business you still make money buy selling, not by saving. Then those projects, which promote sustainability and reduce carbon footprint, usually take a longer time for a Return On Investment, or ROI, to make the project worthwhile.
That is why the most effective strategy for a business to reduce their carbon footprint if they really want to, is to change their purpose or mission statement and then make sure the interconnections within their business is aligned to achieve it.
Word Count: 572
Businesses could decide to source their materials and services, such as landscapers, linen services, etc., locally for a number of reasons, like they know the other businesses personally or they are choosing to support the local economy. Another reason would be that it would reduce the amount of energy needed to transport the goods and services they purchase by reducing the distance of the sources. With food this distance has become known as 'food miles', but it applies to other goods and services as well.
I would think that all businesses could do a Life-Cycle Analysis of their product and even the processes by which they provide their services. Life-Cycle Analysis, or LCA, is the analyzing of each step and process into making a product or providing a service to note energy use, efficiency, materials use, pollution creation, and effect (if any) on social issues that the product or service requires. Take a restaurant for instance. The LCA of providing a meal would mean noting the kind of food being used and how it was produced, the amount of miles driven to get the food delivered to the restaurant, the means by which the food is prepped, stored, cooked, and disposed of, etc. A LCA can be varied in how it's carried out, usually depending on what the business wants to be held accountable and how stringent they are willing to make their standards. Like would they include whether or not the servers at the restaurant are well paid in the LCA of providing the meal?
Then there's the actual physical grounds and buildings that make the business and how they are being managed. Developing a better sealed building envelope is a great way to cut down on the amount of energy needed to control the indoor environment. If the business has a lot of land, then how it is managed and with what materials matters. For example, most fertilizers are fossil-fuel based, adding to the business's carbon footprint.
There's a ton more information out there to advice business on how to become more energy efficient and to reduce their carbon footprint. However, unless the business has made their mission statement to do so, which means backing from the owners and managers, then trying to input these changes in a business is usually a hard sell. It has been the tendency of business to want to gain good PR for their efforts, which means a "sexy" installation of solar panels or something else that would serve as a constant reminder of the business's goodwill. It can be hard convincing higher ups and implementing these changes because to most business you still make money buy selling, not by saving. Then those projects, which promote sustainability and reduce carbon footprint, usually take a longer time for a Return On Investment, or ROI, to make the project worthwhile.
That is why the most effective strategy for a business to reduce their carbon footprint if they really want to, is to change their purpose or mission statement and then make sure the interconnections within their business is aligned to achieve it.
Word Count: 572
Importance of Systems Analysis Regarding Energy
Some tend to think of our energy industry in a vacuum, they think we're reliant on fossil fuels until an alternative energy is made viable enough (through technical supply means), and that's it. But there's a lot more to it than that.
When thinking in terms of systems, it requires you to look at all the elements in the system and then the interconnections between those elements, as well as the overall purpose and function of the system.
Elements include not just the demand and need for energy, but also matters of supply, consumers and their needs, the suppliers, the nations that are rich in oil and their rights, the right to a clean environment, government subsidies, politics, investment, research, development, policy, economic viability, public education, government agencies such as the EPA, lobbyists, pollution, efficiency, and so on.
Interconnections include how energy is produced, how oil is extracted, who is funding the research like corporate funded climate science, who is investing their money where, who owns the conventional media that educates the pubic on energy issues and politics, etc. These help you to understand what obstacles are in the way of shifting our energy industry off of fossil fuels such as the pay to play system in our government, the money-media election complex, the newsmedia being privately owned, an education gap regarding how our own culture and how our society is ran, etc. Systems analysis opens you up to that information.
Then there's the function and the purpose of a system, which aren't necessarily the same things. Function is in regards to the reason for the system in the first place and is usually the non-human element. Purpose is more of the mission statement of the system, add an extra human element. The function of the energy industry, simply put, is to supply the country with energy in order for society to function, like transporting people and goods, heating homes, supplying energy for manufacturing and production of goods, etc. I and many others could argue that the oil industry which supplies the large majority of our energy has their own purpose to make a profit without taking much else into consideration. The function of an energy industry is completely different than the purpose the oil industry has chosen.
Taking a systems thinking approach allows you to get a fuller understanding of the situation regarding our energy industry. It allows you to understand that even though there are alternative answers to supplying and running our energy industry, such as with renewable energy and a decentralized infrastructure and supply, progress isn't being made for other reasons. This is usually the case with answered problems, which our energy industry is. The issues regarding our energy industry are mostly answered problems because we have the technology and the means to shift our energy industry off of fossil fuels. The purposes of the sub-systems within our energy industry, such as our politics, economy, and overall consumer culture and 'limitless' economic views, are not aligned with the overall purpose of transitioning off of fossil fuels in order to decrease the effects of climate change.
If more people, voting citizens, political leaders, economists, etc. understood, discussed, and acted on this, we'd be making far more progress.
Word Count: 497
When thinking in terms of systems, it requires you to look at all the elements in the system and then the interconnections between those elements, as well as the overall purpose and function of the system.
Elements include not just the demand and need for energy, but also matters of supply, consumers and their needs, the suppliers, the nations that are rich in oil and their rights, the right to a clean environment, government subsidies, politics, investment, research, development, policy, economic viability, public education, government agencies such as the EPA, lobbyists, pollution, efficiency, and so on.
Interconnections include how energy is produced, how oil is extracted, who is funding the research like corporate funded climate science, who is investing their money where, who owns the conventional media that educates the pubic on energy issues and politics, etc. These help you to understand what obstacles are in the way of shifting our energy industry off of fossil fuels such as the pay to play system in our government, the money-media election complex, the newsmedia being privately owned, an education gap regarding how our own culture and how our society is ran, etc. Systems analysis opens you up to that information.
Then there's the function and the purpose of a system, which aren't necessarily the same things. Function is in regards to the reason for the system in the first place and is usually the non-human element. Purpose is more of the mission statement of the system, add an extra human element. The function of the energy industry, simply put, is to supply the country with energy in order for society to function, like transporting people and goods, heating homes, supplying energy for manufacturing and production of goods, etc. I and many others could argue that the oil industry which supplies the large majority of our energy has their own purpose to make a profit without taking much else into consideration. The function of an energy industry is completely different than the purpose the oil industry has chosen.
Taking a systems thinking approach allows you to get a fuller understanding of the situation regarding our energy industry. It allows you to understand that even though there are alternative answers to supplying and running our energy industry, such as with renewable energy and a decentralized infrastructure and supply, progress isn't being made for other reasons. This is usually the case with answered problems, which our energy industry is. The issues regarding our energy industry are mostly answered problems because we have the technology and the means to shift our energy industry off of fossil fuels. The purposes of the sub-systems within our energy industry, such as our politics, economy, and overall consumer culture and 'limitless' economic views, are not aligned with the overall purpose of transitioning off of fossil fuels in order to decrease the effects of climate change.
If more people, voting citizens, political leaders, economists, etc. understood, discussed, and acted on this, we'd be making far more progress.
Word Count: 497
Friday, October 3, 2014
Population Growth - One Topic Not Debated Enough
Actually, it started the other way around. Before this immense population growth were conditions such as the agricultural and industrial revolution that enabled society to grow in numbers. Now society seems to be on an overshoot and collapse pattern, where we are growing too fast so that the planet's ability to provide necessary resources isn't keeping up with us. Can't really blame the environment for this, we're also destroying the planet's ecosystem services while growing in numbers, which just doesn't seem fair. (MAJOR sarcasm if you hadn't noticed, the human species is utterly stupid because we are destroying the environment that keeps us alive.)
Anyway, with climate change on the rise, so are many conversations and initiatives surrounding how we can change our economic, political, and social systems, including our energy industry, to solve humanity's resource and climate crisis. What has been largely left out is the discussion of population control. Paul Ehrlich, author of "Population Bomb" and the IPAT equation that attempts to measure the influence of the human population on the environment, gave a lecture called "Distress Signals from Earth" on Alternative Radio, WAMC 90.3FM, that aired on April 8, 2014. In this lecture he stated that he wanted to hit the high points that he feels aren't normally emphasized enough or even part of the conversation. Included in those points was that one of the drivers of the basic problem of climate change are overpopulation and overconsumption. His response to solutions that include just working on consumption and not the issue of overpopulation is that it's "absolute bullshit", it won't work unless you tackle both.
This debate isn't happening enough, and when it is brought up, you are looked at as though you are a radical or extremist. While at the People's Climate March I saw only one group of about 3 people holding a sign that mentioned to need for population control. I looked on and thought how great it was, while I could hear muffled comments from people around me thinking they were a bit over the top or crazy. That reaction needs to change.
As a society we need to get passed the notion that procreation is always a good thing, and we need seriously start discussing the push for more family planning education, how that affects our environment and climate change, and a push to make resources available everywhere to reduce fertility. There are cascading and immediate benefits that result from family planning and giving women the economic and cultural power to make and carry out decisions about their fertility, including increased health for the women and their children, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions, more educational and employment opportunities, and enhanced social and economic status. Some countries have enforced population control, like China with their 'one child' policy, leading to an economic boom. (Although, because of their culture, male children were preferred over females, resulting in a current shortage of women in their population.)
Looking through my Facebook feed I found a short video that I thought was going to raise awareness to population issues because it was titled "Why bring a child into this world?" I was absolutely shocked and quite angry after watching this video because Unilever, a major corporation that sells products largely targeting children, was pushing a message that innovation and technology have been improving the quality of life for children in the world and that you shouldn't worry so much, go ahead and have a child. Some of these 'improvements' included how more food than ever is being produced, new technology to provide clean drinking water is invented all the time, simple everyday products of the future will be able to prevent more diseases, and "our children will have greater chances of meeting their great-grandchildren than we ever did." The whole of my education in sustainability tells me that none of these are likely to be true at all! And it skirts around the real issues, because while we may be producing enough food to feed the world, people around the world are still dying of starvation because of corruption and greed in our economic and political systems. I went to comment on the post saying exactly that, and found that someone right before me already had, which was a small piece of relief to see that people are aware of reality.
Personally, I don't want to have my own child because, along with other reasons, I don't want to bring another child into this world when the future of our society is so uncertain. Adoption is, dare I say it, almost THE ethical and moral way to go. Why bring more children into this chaotic world when there are so many already here that aren't being taken care of?
When you consider the almost CERTAIN result of climate change that we'll see, that the temperature will rise making the sea levels rise resulting in millions of environmental refugees moving inland crowding available space even more, it seems crazy NOT to be discussing population control.
Word Count:931
Sources:
- Paul Ehrlich. "Distress Signals from Earth". Alternative Radio, WAMC 90.3FM. April 8, 2014.
- Butler, T. (2012). The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delsuion of Endless Growth. (T. Butler, D. Lerch, & G. Wuerthner, Eds.) (p. 364). Canada: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Post Carbon Institute, Watershed Media.
- Why bring a child into this world? - A film by Unilever. (Nov 19, 2013). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL-207QGzN0
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Economics & Our Resulting Culture
In the US the government and politicians look to the economy to judge the wealth and prosperity of society; how the society is doing. To measure this economists and other professionals look at economic growth and largely use the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If GDP is on the rise, and rising at an increasing rate, then to them this means society is in success. In reality this isn't the case. Instead this ideology ignores the quality of life while encouraging limitless use of energy and resources no matter the cost to the environment.
This largely ties in to what the American Dream used to be earlier on in society and what it has become today. When this country was founded the American Dream meant being able to take care of yourself and provide for your family in order to live a happy life. The American Dream also has ideologies attached such as being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, being independent, and no matter who you are if you work hard enough you will be a success. That 'American Dream' has somehow morphed into meaning that being successful means being cut-throat and becoming wealthy and rich, to have a lot of money. To achieve this people and businesses become focused and caught up in the corporate business model, where you cut costs and increase profit in almost any way possible. People have gotten so caught up in this rat race to make more money, that even when they do manage to become wealthy they have lost sight of the real goal, which is to improve the quality of life and to be happy. The irony of it all is that the corporate and economic model that's resulted is what is standing in the way of people being able to achieve the American Dream.
This largely ties in to what the American Dream used to be earlier on in society and what it has become today. When this country was founded the American Dream meant being able to take care of yourself and provide for your family in order to live a happy life. The American Dream also has ideologies attached such as being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, being independent, and no matter who you are if you work hard enough you will be a success. That 'American Dream' has somehow morphed into meaning that being successful means being cut-throat and becoming wealthy and rich, to have a lot of money. To achieve this people and businesses become focused and caught up in the corporate business model, where you cut costs and increase profit in almost any way possible. People have gotten so caught up in this rat race to make more money, that even when they do manage to become wealthy they have lost sight of the real goal, which is to improve the quality of life and to be happy. The irony of it all is that the corporate and economic model that's resulted is what is standing in the way of people being able to achieve the American Dream.
This has encroached on all parts of our society and how we live. Even how we treat our elderly. Think about it, in this country when our parents and grandparents get older and become slow or confused, our society treats them as though they are no longer valuable. They make mistakes, move slow, they become a problem for business and stand in the way of increasing profits. So what does our society do? We put our elderly and disabled in nursing homes and rehab centers. We push them out of ours homes and do not acknowledge their wisdom, experience, or how they are still an asset to our society. Other countries around the world would be appalled at the idea. They take care of their aging family and understand they have valuable wisdom... Not to mention, they are family.
I feel as though our society takes more risks than are necessary as well, and one reason is that we expect to be independent. I had a conversation recently with a good friend who's struggling financially with the idea of going back to college, working, and being able to pay bills at the same time. Her boyfriend wants to support her financially in this, but she felt guilty and disappointed in herself. I had to explain to her that this is what family and loved ones are for. I had to bring to her attention that if we had grown up in another country that we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. She should let her loved ones fulfill their own needs, including helping her out. Instead she wanted to take out more loans and go into serious debt, taking more risk on her financial future.
The idea of economic leveling or even having higher taxes in order to take care of the people in your country and stand in solidarity is common in other countries, such as Norway, Denmark, and even some tribal countries in Africa. The idea is to redistribute the wealth from the super wealthy to those who need it more, either directly or through taxes and social services. This works in cultures that understand what it means to be truly rich. There's a quote by Andrew Carnegie, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced." It means that it's shameful to amass wealth without giving back to your community and people. In African tribes, if you don't partake in economic leveling, you're severely punished or even shunned. In the US, tax is a dirty word that people detest. The American society seems to have forgotten what being taxed means and what the benefits are. Without tax, and regulation, the industries and 1% get away with most of the wealth creating a wealth gap, not to mention that they get away with destroying our environment. If our culture and American Dream were different, then perhaps our societal and even global issues wouldn't be as hard to overcome.
Going back to GDP and the common thought today that economic growth equals a happy society... this assumes that society and economy exist in a limitless world. If we look to economic growth as the standard to measure how society is doing, then we want to see that GDP is forever increasing, but that's neither logical nor possible. We live in a world with limits; there exists the enormous need for us to shift our values and economy so we acknowledges those limits.
I imagine an economic shift where the goal isn't endless growth and increasing wealth, but the optimizing of the quality of life for everyone. With that shift comes the acknowledgment of limits to our environment and the transition to a more sustainable culture.
I challenge everyone to start with a blank slate and think of a culture and economic system that is sustainable. Then, how to get there?
Word Count: 945
I imagine an economic shift where the goal isn't endless growth and increasing wealth, but the optimizing of the quality of life for everyone. With that shift comes the acknowledgment of limits to our environment and the transition to a more sustainable culture.
I challenge everyone to start with a blank slate and think of a culture and economic system that is sustainable. Then, how to get there?
Word Count: 945
Sources:
- On the American Dream:
- Barlett, D. L., & Steele, J. B. (2012). The Betrayal of the American Dream (p. 289). PublicAffairs.
- On economic growth, limits, need to shift economy:
- Butler, T. (2012). The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth. (T. Butler, D. Lerch, & G. Wuerthner, Eds.) (p. 364). Canada: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Post Carbon Institute, Watershed Media.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Frack Caution
To start off I'm going to explain some of the fracking process, and then I'm going to discuss some issues that result from fracking that isn't widely covered in the media.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process of drilling down and horizontally underground and pumping massive amounts of water (up to millions of gallons per well!), proppant (sand and other debris), and chemical cocktail under extreme pressure to break up rock in order to release natural gas or oil to be captured for fuel. This method is supposed to be cleaner than coal because when burned it releases only half of the greenhouse gases (GHGs), and thus is considered a potential "transition" fuel towards alternative energy.
The process pumps down massive amounts of water that then comes back up as contaminated flowback or produced water. This water is then supposed to be stored at the drill site in tanks or in a pit dug into the ground until it can be either brought to a waste water treatment plant, like a local municipality, or is injected into an underground well. So it's supposed to be treated at a plant and then put back into surface water like a river or just pumped back into the ground, away from drinking sources, and left for good.
This seems almost all fine and dandy and is what you can find out by reading the EPA's website. (The EPA is known for having a rocky reputation, from who is running it to what they have allowed the oil industry to get away, with making the public question its integrity.)
What they don't tell you...
According to Butler in "The Energy Reader" if you look at the overall process of fracking there are many points at which methane gas, which is released from the rock, escapes and is lost into the atmosphere at many points. This released methane gas is a GHG that is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, so the life-cycle analysis of fracking would conclude that natural gas is not better than coal in terms of environmental impact.
And that chemical cocktail I keep mentioning? There's a reason why I haven't listed what's in it, because it hasn't been released to the public. Apparently, the oil industry claims proprietary rights over the chemical mixture they use during fracking and thus refuses to release that information to the public or environmental agencies.
Now they claim that the industry disposes of this used water properly, but that can't be right because the technology to transform this water back to drinkable water doesn't exist. Locally, there is huge potential for a mistake to be made and for them to contaminate drinking water, in which case responders and health professionals wouldn't know what they were dealing with. On a broader scale, if you know anything about how the water table works (of which I know the basics from speaking with an expert at my hometown meeting over another issue) then you know that water that is put into the ground doesn't just stay there. The water gets filtered through the layers of soil and gradually moves toward water bodies until it releases back into a river and the ocean; it's a constant slow filtering process that's part of the water cycle. Injecting super concentrated and contaminated water into our ground doesn't seem like the brightest idea when the world already has a shortage of clean drinking water; and that's their proper disposal method.
Sound familiar? If you watch the mainstream media it wouldn't be. Only within the past couple of weeks has a Yale study been published in Environmental Health Perspectives (a journal of the National Institutes of Health) reporting that people living closer to fracking wells report more health symptoms than those living farther away. This is finally starting to raise awareness over the suffering of these communities and also raise public concern over the potential human exposure to chemicals and toxins created by fracking practices.
The US largely ignores precaution and takes action based on 'risk management'. In this case, if the US chooses to continue to ignore problems with fracking, then it sends the message that the US says 'frack' caution. Hopefully, with more reports published on the negative effects of fracking and the banning of fracking spreading, more countries including the US will look around with constructive criticism and move forward with caution.
Word Count: 1,283
Sources:
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process of drilling down and horizontally underground and pumping massive amounts of water (up to millions of gallons per well!), proppant (sand and other debris), and chemical cocktail under extreme pressure to break up rock in order to release natural gas or oil to be captured for fuel. This method is supposed to be cleaner than coal because when burned it releases only half of the greenhouse gases (GHGs), and thus is considered a potential "transition" fuel towards alternative energy.
The process pumps down massive amounts of water that then comes back up as contaminated flowback or produced water. This water is then supposed to be stored at the drill site in tanks or in a pit dug into the ground until it can be either brought to a waste water treatment plant, like a local municipality, or is injected into an underground well. So it's supposed to be treated at a plant and then put back into surface water like a river or just pumped back into the ground, away from drinking sources, and left for good.
This seems almost all fine and dandy and is what you can find out by reading the EPA's website. (The EPA is known for having a rocky reputation, from who is running it to what they have allowed the oil industry to get away, with making the public question its integrity.)
What they don't tell you...
According to Butler in "The Energy Reader" if you look at the overall process of fracking there are many points at which methane gas, which is released from the rock, escapes and is lost into the atmosphere at many points. This released methane gas is a GHG that is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, so the life-cycle analysis of fracking would conclude that natural gas is not better than coal in terms of environmental impact.
What I found disturbing are the suspected pollution of groundwater and health impacts on the communities surrounding fracking wells. The flowback water contains proppant debris and the chemical cocktail it was pumped with, but it also includes other substances that were also released from the rock. The rock used to be ocean bedrock and releases super concentrated ocean brine, benzene, heavy metals, and radioactive materials that then flows back up the hole and to the surface with flowback. There is already a huge issue with what to do with nuclear radioactive waste because it will last thousands of years and we're running out of safe storage for it. Now we're pushing another largescale practice that also results in radioactive waste? What are we going to do with it?Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
And that chemical cocktail I keep mentioning? There's a reason why I haven't listed what's in it, because it hasn't been released to the public. Apparently, the oil industry claims proprietary rights over the chemical mixture they use during fracking and thus refuses to release that information to the public or environmental agencies.
Now they claim that the industry disposes of this used water properly, but that can't be right because the technology to transform this water back to drinkable water doesn't exist. Locally, there is huge potential for a mistake to be made and for them to contaminate drinking water, in which case responders and health professionals wouldn't know what they were dealing with. On a broader scale, if you know anything about how the water table works (of which I know the basics from speaking with an expert at my hometown meeting over another issue) then you know that water that is put into the ground doesn't just stay there. The water gets filtered through the layers of soil and gradually moves toward water bodies until it releases back into a river and the ocean; it's a constant slow filtering process that's part of the water cycle. Injecting super concentrated and contaminated water into our ground doesn't seem like the brightest idea when the world already has a shortage of clean drinking water; and that's their proper disposal method.
During Earth week earlier this year I went to a presentation by Yuri Gorby, an RPI professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering, on his research with fracking communities in this country. A lot of information stayed with me from his presentation, including the fact that the fracking sites aren't well monitored or regulated. That or the drivers are being told break their practices by driving down an empty rural road and DUMPING the flowback water as they go. Professor Gorby described instances where he could follow the runoff stream of flowback water that ran from a fracking site right down the road to a local farm! What seemed to be another common practice was something called "flairing" which is the practice of lighting the gas and contaminants escaping the well om fire and just letting it burn. When this occurs for hours on end he described how you would step outside and taste the chemicals in your mouth. Many, if not most, of the residents in these fracking communities had recently come down with many of the same symptoms having to do with the water and air quality. It was so bad that families actually filled the cracks in their homes like people in during the Dust Bowl had to in order to keep the chemical filled air out. That is, if they didn't move out of town altogether. And try selling your house for a reasonable price or at all when buyers in the area know of the problems; the value of these people's homes have decreased because it's so bad.The technology to transform this water back to drinkable water doesn't exist.
Sound familiar? If you watch the mainstream media it wouldn't be. Only within the past couple of weeks has a Yale study been published in Environmental Health Perspectives (a journal of the National Institutes of Health) reporting that people living closer to fracking wells report more health symptoms than those living farther away. This is finally starting to raise awareness over the suffering of these communities and also raise public concern over the potential human exposure to chemicals and toxins created by fracking practices.
Yale study shows people living closer to fracking wells report more health symptoms than those living farther away.This is why there are communities that are trying to ban fracking in their area, across the country, and around the world. Germany is in a position where they would seem to benefit from fracking because they have the resources, their infrastructure is very well set up for it, they are in need of more domestic energy production, and they want to stop relying so heavily on Russia. With all that in mind, it's a pretty big deal that Germany has a 7-year ban on fracking, either because their government decided to listen to the public outcry over it, or they were honest when they said they don't know enough about the risks involved and are proceeding with caution. This is called the 'Precautionary Principle', where if people and the government feel that the science hasn't provided enough information or knowledge to prove something is safe then they won't go ahead with it until they do. What a concept huh?
The US largely ignores precaution and takes action based on 'risk management'. In this case, if the US chooses to continue to ignore problems with fracking, then it sends the message that the US says 'frack' caution. Hopefully, with more reports published on the negative effects of fracking and the banning of fracking spreading, more countries including the US will look around with constructive criticism and move forward with caution.
Word Count: 1,283
Sources:
- Butler, T. (2012). The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delsuion of Endless Growth. (T. Butler, D. Lerch, & G. Wuerthner, Eds.) (p. 121, 175-178). Canada: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Post Carbon Institute, Watershed Media.
- Germany Bans Fracking. (2014, July 8). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/articles/germany-bans-fracking-1404763231
- US EPA, OA, OEAEE, O. (2014). The Process of Hydraulic Fracturing. Retrieved September 19, 2014, from http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/process-hydraulic-fracturing
- Zeltner, B. (2014, September 10). Residents living nearer natural gas wells report more health symptoms, Yale study says. Cleaveland.com. Retrieved from http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/09/residents_living_nearer_natura.html#incart_river
Friday, September 12, 2014
Leading up to the People's Climate March
Original thoughts posted on September 12, 2014:
If you haven't already heard, there is a mobilization occurring for the People's Climate March on Sunday September 21, 2014 in New York City. Along with other students and concerned citizens, I will being going down on a bus provided by RPI, and I'm excited! This will be the first large demonstration I've ever taken part in, and from looking at the flyer they posted on facebook below, it's going to be an enormous amount of people. To be honest it makes me a little worried... but I know that going will be worth it.
Then in my Energy Politics class we watched the film below called Disruption by Kelly Nyks & Jared P. Scott. I have watched a lot of movies and documentaries on environmental issues and sustainability, and I felt this movie was executed very well. The film went through the timeline of when scientists started notifying and advising officials that climate change was a serious issue and of when and how our government and the public started to really listen to them. It also told viewers when and why the People's Climate March was happening, the importance of a march, and went through a countdown of the days preceding the I was extremely impressed by the quality and variety of experts that took part, including Naomi Klein, Chris Hayes, Bill McKibben, Dr. Heidi Cullen, Van Jones, Dr. James Hansen and more. Not surprisingly it was made by the same team that made 'Do the Math' for 350.org.
There were other events in NYC leading up to the march on Sunday, but since I am a student that lives up in Troy I had to rely on RPI's bus to bring us down. Otherwise I would have done more to contribute and would have gone to more events to show my support, and you have to question how these sort of things affect the outcome of a movement like this. Do people have the means to get there? Do they have other obligations they couldn't put off?
If you haven't already heard, there is a mobilization occurring for the People's Climate March on Sunday September 21, 2014 in New York City. Along with other students and concerned citizens, I will being going down on a bus provided by RPI, and I'm excited! This will be the first large demonstration I've ever taken part in, and from looking at the flyer they posted on facebook below, it's going to be an enormous amount of people. To be honest it makes me a little worried... but I know that going will be worth it.
The People's Climate March is to bring people that recognize in diverse ways that climate change and global warming is a major issue. The march was planned on Sunday to coincide with the UN Climate Summit being held with world leaders in NYC on Tuesday September 23. The point of the march is to bring awareness to the issue of climate change, all the issues that are involved in the systems around climate change, and to show the public that yes, the people are concerned and want our world leaders to stop debating and start acting. Now.
Leading up to this event, because I joined the event on facebook, I have been receiving updates on what the plans were, what I needed to prepare, transportation for how to get there and back, information on where I could stay, etc. This march was extremely well organized. I initially signed up because I had gotten an email from 350.org asking me to months ago, and being a big supporter of Bill McKibben's work raising awareness on climate change, I was in.
Leading up to this event, because I joined the event on facebook, I have been receiving updates on what the plans were, what I needed to prepare, transportation for how to get there and back, information on where I could stay, etc. This march was extremely well organized. I initially signed up because I had gotten an email from 350.org asking me to months ago, and being a big supporter of Bill McKibben's work raising awareness on climate change, I was in.
Then in my Energy Politics class we watched the film below called Disruption by Kelly Nyks & Jared P. Scott. I have watched a lot of movies and documentaries on environmental issues and sustainability, and I felt this movie was executed very well. The film went through the timeline of when scientists started notifying and advising officials that climate change was a serious issue and of when and how our government and the public started to really listen to them. It also told viewers when and why the People's Climate March was happening, the importance of a march, and went through a countdown of the days preceding the I was extremely impressed by the quality and variety of experts that took part, including Naomi Klein, Chris Hayes, Bill McKibben, Dr. Heidi Cullen, Van Jones, Dr. James Hansen and more. Not surprisingly it was made by the same team that made 'Do the Math' for 350.org.
There were other events in NYC leading up to the march on Sunday, but since I am a student that lives up in Troy I had to rely on RPI's bus to bring us down. Otherwise I would have done more to contribute and would have gone to more events to show my support, and you have to question how these sort of things affect the outcome of a movement like this. Do people have the means to get there? Do they have other obligations they couldn't put off?
Word Count: 518
Political Turmoil and Energy Security
One of the headlines I saw this morning as I was checking my email was one from the Wall Street Journal titled "Sanctions Over Ukraine put Exxon at Risk". Now I am very bad at being able to keep foreign political issues straight, but I did some further reading and this is the gist of what I understand to be the current Ukraine crisis. Russia annexed a peninsula shaped part of Ukraine called Crimea after the Ukrainian Revolution, and ever since there has been unrest among different political affiliations in Crimea and Ukraine and the Russian government. To be honest after reading it for an hour, I know there are more issues involved here, such as issues with Syria and ISIS, but I can't seem to make sense of what is going on. However, for the points I want to make in this post I don't need to explain much.
One point I do want to make is that Ukraine's energy comes mostly from Russia through pipelines, and Ukraine has accused Russia of using this as political leverage over them. This is an example of underlying energy politics that plays into other political turmoil that I don't much hear about in the news... but then again that might just be me being late in joining the 'drinking in news with my coffee' club.
The headline mentioned above is about how yesterday, Thursday September 11, 2014, President Obama announced that he will be supporting tougher economic sanctions on Russia to "protest what the US describes as Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine". These economic sanctions now interfere with a contract Russia signed 2 years ago with Exxon, a contract that was hoped to bring ties between US and Russia closer. Now it just puts Exxon in a sticky situation because they are being seen as buddy-buddy with Russia, just as Russia is being seen as making the Ukraine crisis worse by being uncooperative for the US. But the real issue for Exxon is that their chances of tapping the crude oil from the contract with Russia is looking slim.
Being an environmentalist, this sounds like a blessing to me. Though I know I have high hopes, perhaps the postponement of Exxon being able to drill into Russia's crude will give Russia enough time to consider changing their fossil fuel energy policies. The Russian Federation is part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) afterall, and they are meeting this November and at a Climate Summit in Paris in June 2015.
What I keep wondering is how long it is going to take countries to wake up and realize that they should take these climate summits seriously. According to 350.org's 'Do The Math', we can only allow 565 of the 2,795 gigatons of current oil reserves to burn before our climate will be pushed over the 2 degree Celsius increase that will cause major changes to the way we live. How can governments and the oil industry keep turning a blind eye while claiming to be meeting to solve the same issue? Not to mention, fossil fuel sources can be stolen or hijacked and be sold to fund corrupt groups like what ISIS is currently doing. Renewable energy sources that are decentralized from the government and are more in the hands of the communities and people can't really be hijacked like that, and in that sense is a less risky investment.
I am eager to see the effect the People's Climate March has on leaders and their future discussions at climate summits. Hopefully leaders won't be sidetracked by what's going on with Ukraine and with ISIS, but instead take it into account and think over how issues like these tie in to the future of energy security.
Word Count: 627
Sources:
Word Count: 627
Sources:
- Baker, G. (2014). The 10-Point: Gerard Baker on Obama’s Allies, Exxon's Russian Oil Deal, UPS's Strategy and More - WSJ. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-10-point-gerard-baker-on-obamas-allies-exxons-russian-oil-deal-upss-strategy-and-more-1410519180?tesla=y
- BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Timeline. (2014, September 9). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275
- Do the Math - Because We > Fossil Fuels. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://math.350.org/
- Flynn, A. (2014, September 12). Energy Journal: ExxonMobil’s Tricky Position in Russia - MoneyBeat - WSJ. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/12/energy-journal-exxonmobils-tricky-position-in-russia/?KEYWORDS=oil+exxon
Divestment at RPI?
Last semester I had this idea kicking around that I wanted to start a divestment campaign on campus asking RPI to divest its endowment from fossil fuel based energy markets. I then came back to my reality and recognized that I had no time for my classwork or even cooking my groceries let alone extra-curricular activities. However, I am still intrigued by the notion of divestment at RPI and so, here is some idea of how that might look and how student bodies at other universities have accomplished this.
Divestment is when a large establishment that has a large amount of money to put into investment, be it a business, university, church, whatever, takes their money out of investing in fossil fuels and invests in something else. The reason divestment is such a huge issue is because the whole fossil fuel industry, that is polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases, spewing chemicals from fracking, ruining the gulf with oil spills, etc., is held financially stable with the money invested in it. There are divestment campaigns where students, churchgoers, and other community stakeholders rally and petition for divestment of their establishment because it doesn't make any sense to be preaching and teaching society on the issues of climate change while simultaneously backing oil companies.
Some universities acknowledged that their investment portfolio wasn't reflecting their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment criteria and agreed to divest. Stanford acknowledged this and divested from 100 coal companies, while other colleges like Harvard have been pleading for 40 years that narrowing their investment options could be financially risky for a return for the college. This is ironic because they are using business-as-usal (BAU) to dictate their portfolio instead of the current reality that the fossil fuel industry can be volatile due to major accidents, political tensions, or simply the resource running out. A more sound way to invest the money could be with the growing renewable energy market or to re-invest in improving the local community.
Word Count: 962
Sources:
Some universities acknowledged that their investment portfolio wasn't reflecting their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment criteria and agreed to divest. Stanford acknowledged this and divested from 100 coal companies, while other colleges like Harvard have been pleading for 40 years that narrowing their investment options could be financially risky for a return for the college. This is ironic because they are using business-as-usal (BAU) to dictate their portfolio instead of the current reality that the fossil fuel industry can be volatile due to major accidents, political tensions, or simply the resource running out. A more sound way to invest the money could be with the growing renewable energy market or to re-invest in improving the local community.
Coming back to RPI... The initial tidbit of information that made me so intrigued was that Shirley Ann Jackson, the President of RPI, is on the board for Marathon Oil Corporation and the energy company Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated (PSEG), along with IBM, Medtronic Inc., and FedEx. How this woman manages all this is beyond me, props to her. However, I wonder if the student body of her university wanted RPI to divest, would it create a conflict of interest for her? This is where the digging of information began...
And I came up really short. Turns out you can't just look up online how your university chooses to invest their endowment. That is why a divestment campaign can also become a campaign for more transparency so the public is informed and can hold the university accountable if the do agree to divest. I was able to get financial statements from a few years ago, but none of it gave information on the kinds of companies and industries RPI invested in.
Instead, to my surprise I discovered a history of divestment at RPI. Around September and October of 2013, only one year ago, there was a small and short-lived divestment movement that rallied for RPI to "go fossil free". But... I was here a year ago and would have found that extremely exciting, so my guess is one of the issues they had with building support was getting the word out to the student body. I'm one of the few Sustainability Studies majors enrolled, and if I didn't know about this then they must not have done enough research and planning to gather momentum for this cause. Another issue they came up against was campus politics; their "Application to Hold a Peaceful Demonstration on Campus" had been denied.
That's what much of a divestment campaign entails, organization of activists and campaign strategies. If I were to start a divestment campaign at RPI I would start by talking with people on the buses on the way down to NYC for the People's Climate March on Sunday, September 21st. I would purposefully take advantage of the increased awareness of climate change issues among the campus community. From there I would go to student majors and clubs affiliated with environmental sciences, sustainability, economic justice, and finance, and find a staff member that would be willing to provide guidance and support. Once everyone was gathered, the next step would be to draft a petition asking RPI to disclose its investment portfolio and divest from fossil fuels. It would be even better to set up a rally or educational event where maybe 350.org could visit campus, give a speech, and mention the petition to the crowd. Once there were enough signatures obtained and awareness raised, I would imagine the culmination would be to organize a meeting with RPI Officials to ask them if they are going to respond to the campus community and divest.
In 1988 RPI students campaigned and rallied for RPI to divest from South African companies that supported the Apartheid government. They submitted two demands: that RPI disclose the companies they were invested in and to divest from those doing business with the Apartheid government. The current acting President had returned with an agreement to disclose, but not divest. When you take a step back and look at the larger picture, that was still a victory. By the mid-1980's 155 campuses, 26 state governments, 22 counties, and 90 cities divested from companies doing business with South Africa. The overall divestment campaign helped to break up the Apartheid government.
Perhaps this Fossil Free Divestment campaign will help loosen King CONG's hold on the energy market and we will finally be able to usher in a new era of renewable energy and sustainable practices.
Perhaps this Fossil Free Divestment campaign will help loosen King CONG's hold on the energy market and we will finally be able to usher in a new era of renewable energy and sustainable practices.
Word Count: 962
Sources:
- Fossil Free – Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://gofossilfree.org/frequently-asked-questions/
- NACUBO: Public NCSE Tables. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables.html
- President’s Profile - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.rpi.edu/president/profile.html
- PSS: Rensselaer Alumnus again calls for divestment; protested during Alumni Weekend events | The Rensselaer Polytechnic. (October 16, 2013). Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://poly.rpi.edu/2013/10/16/pss_rensselaer_alumnus_again_calls_for_divestment_protested_during_alumni_weekend_events/
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Go Fossil Free! | Fossil Free. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/petitions/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute
- The Long, Stubborn Fight with Universities over Coal, Oil, and Gas Divestment « Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog. (September 10, 2014). Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://chieforganizer.org/2014/09/10/the-long-stubborn-fight-with-universities-over-coal-oil-and-gas-divestment/?utm_content=bufferb9c57&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
- Times Union - Albany NY. (January 25, 1988). Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5506547
Solarize Troy
Solarize Troy is a group of volunteers in Troy, New York that have come together with the goal of bringing solar panels to Troy residents at a reduced price. The concept is to gather community stakeholders and have them educate the community through local outreach, gather a group of interested buyers, collaborate to find a solar installer, and negotiate a lower price in exchange for the sheer volume of purchases. Basically, volunteers gather enough interested buyers in Troy to get a 'buy-in-bulk' discount from a solar installer of their choosing. The goal is to get a low enough price to provide the incentive for a large group to convert from fuel based energy sources to solar.
Why would the solar companies go for this when they can find their own customers? It actually turns out that offering a lower is worth it for the solar companies because the solarize volunteers have already done a lot of the legwork involved in community outreach and marketing, not to mention the purchasers are already screened and informed interested buyers. This business model, known as a solarize purchasing cooperative, has been a success in the Southeast Portland community and others across the country.
Solarize Troy started with a former project manager for IBM some other locals that were already involved with Transition Troy and Transition Albany, other local initiatives that pursue adaptation for climate change and sustainability. The group came together as the 'steering committee' and reached out to residents to see who was interested. By June 2014 that had about 75 interested homeowners. The group then sent out a proposal to solar vendors that include not just specifics on pricing, but also product quality requirements and company responsibility. They got a handful of responses and after consideration chose RGS Energy, a regional provider based in Vermont. After the discounts RGS gave Solarize Troy and the government tax credits and rebates, it ends up being that the homeowners end up paying $6500 for a $30,000 panel. Not too shabby.
Incentives from the government coupled with Solarize initiatives like this spreading to communities across the county, professionals expect most homeowners to convert to solar energy within a few years. The way it will happen is that the demand for solar will be driven up, buying increases, and prices will eventually follow because the incentives will fade out. And that's exactly the point of the incentives and solarize initiatives, to increase demand across the country until those incentives aren't needed anymore to make solar energy viable for a larger audience in the market. There are skeptics, such as the Greenpeace activist Danny Kennedy, that believe the relationship between our government and regulated energy monopolies will push back against solar energy from taking over the market. In an interview Danny Kennedy calls these energy monopolies "King CONG" for the major corporations in the coal, oil, nuclear, and gas industry (I thought CONG was a brilliant name). Skeptics, including myself, think that the government isn't going to just let the solar industry grow and take over a lot of the market because a major shift to solar energy would disrupt the centralized power, shifting the power of the energy industry towards the people. However, I also agree with Danny K. when he said that a shift to solar is possible with enough "social will and political pressure" society can beat King CONG by being "smarter, better, and cheaper", and I think that is exactly what initiatives like Solarize Troy are accomplishing.
Word Count: 583
Sources:
Why would the solar companies go for this when they can find their own customers? It actually turns out that offering a lower is worth it for the solar companies because the solarize volunteers have already done a lot of the legwork involved in community outreach and marketing, not to mention the purchasers are already screened and informed interested buyers. This business model, known as a solarize purchasing cooperative, has been a success in the Southeast Portland community and others across the country.
Solarize Troy started with a former project manager for IBM some other locals that were already involved with Transition Troy and Transition Albany, other local initiatives that pursue adaptation for climate change and sustainability. The group came together as the 'steering committee' and reached out to residents to see who was interested. By June 2014 that had about 75 interested homeowners. The group then sent out a proposal to solar vendors that include not just specifics on pricing, but also product quality requirements and company responsibility. They got a handful of responses and after consideration chose RGS Energy, a regional provider based in Vermont. After the discounts RGS gave Solarize Troy and the government tax credits and rebates, it ends up being that the homeowners end up paying $6500 for a $30,000 panel. Not too shabby.
Incentives from the government coupled with Solarize initiatives like this spreading to communities across the county, professionals expect most homeowners to convert to solar energy within a few years. The way it will happen is that the demand for solar will be driven up, buying increases, and prices will eventually follow because the incentives will fade out. And that's exactly the point of the incentives and solarize initiatives, to increase demand across the country until those incentives aren't needed anymore to make solar energy viable for a larger audience in the market. There are skeptics, such as the Greenpeace activist Danny Kennedy, that believe the relationship between our government and regulated energy monopolies will push back against solar energy from taking over the market. In an interview Danny Kennedy calls these energy monopolies "King CONG" for the major corporations in the coal, oil, nuclear, and gas industry (I thought CONG was a brilliant name). Skeptics, including myself, think that the government isn't going to just let the solar industry grow and take over a lot of the market because a major shift to solar energy would disrupt the centralized power, shifting the power of the energy industry towards the people. However, I also agree with Danny K. when he said that a shift to solar is possible with enough "social will and political pressure" society can beat King CONG by being "smarter, better, and cheaper", and I think that is exactly what initiatives like Solarize Troy are accomplishing.
Word Count: 583
Sources:
- Kickstarting the Sun — Metroland. (Katelynn Ulrich). Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://metroland.net/2014/07/17/kickstarting-the-sun/
- Rooftop Revolution: How Solar Energy Is Putting Power Back in the Hands of the People | Alternet. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.alternet.org/environment/rooftop-revolution-how-solar-energy-putting-power-back-hands-people?page=0%2C1
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)