News-Record.com

Seventeen coal ash disposal sites in North Carolina pose serious health risks to nearby residents, according to a new analysis of 2002 EPA data. Those sites are in several counties, including Rockingham and Stokes counties.

Quick searches turned up stories by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia. I was off yesterday so I didn't have time to do anything.

According to the report by Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice:

"An EPA risk assessment documents excess cancer risks of up to 1 in 50 for residents living near unlined ash ponds. The study also shows risks to fish and wildlife may exceed known safe levels by a factor of 1,000 or more. Risk estimates first identified in 2002 were blacked out by the Bush Administration in Freedom of Information Act responses."

And,

"The EPA‘s 2007 risk assessment shows that the disposal of coal ash, especially in unlined ponds, results in alarmingly high risks of cancer and diseases of the heart, lung, liver, stomach and other organs and can seriously harm aquatic ecosystems and wildlife near disposal sites. These risks are driven by exposure to toxic metals that leach from groundwater into drinking water, surface waters and sediment. Some of the sites evaluated by the EPA may no longer be active, but the Agency has warned that contamination from coal ash ponds will not peak until about 78 to 105 years after waste is dumped, while peak exposure from landfills may occur after even longer periods of time."

Check out this interactive map by the Natural Resources Defense Council that shows existing and proposed alternative energy sites throughout the country. It shows our state's highest renewable energy potential in bio-gas. Background here.

Check out this overview of the federal stimulus package that state energy Director Larry Shirley gave to lawmakers this week:

"In many instances funds will be distributed through existing formulas to programs with proven track records and accountability measures already in place.... Governors, mayors or others making funding decisions must personally certify that the investment has been fully vetted and is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. "

The Center for Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland will examine the global peak oil theory and its potential impact on public health at a conference in March. People in health care or related industries who are interested in learning more about this can participate in the conference by Web cast.

According to the conference agenda, organizers aim to:

• Describe the linkages among peak oil, climate change, the built environment, and declining
ecosystems;
• Analyze the key implications of peak oil and the linkages to public health;
• Explain the implications of peak oil to key economic sectors like transportation, health
care, and food production and distribution; and
• Describe critical planning activities that must be undertaken to prepare for the challenges
to public health, health care, disaster preparedness, and communities.

The last university that I am aware of that looked at this issue was the College of Public Health at Ohio State University.

Of course, we don't know how the oil situation will play out as its production and consumption are influenced by many factors. People who believe global oil production will soon peak have different prognoses for potential impacts on the U.S., with some believing the country will transition to other energy sources without major economic and social disruptions and others claiming peak oil will have devastating effects on society. They also differ on whether the public or private sector should be most responsible for curtailing society's petroleum use.

Not sure yet where Johns Hopkins academics stand, but a Q&A interview with Brian Schwartz, professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of the School’s Program on Global Sustainability and Health, provides some clues:

Question: What should governments and communities be doing to prepare for peak oil?

Answer: To maintain industrial society and other aspects of our current way of living, energy must be rapidly scalable to capacity, be transportable and storable, and have a high EROEI (energy return on energy invested). It must be energy--dense and renewable, because if it is not, it only postpones the problem, and it must be ecologically sane and not exacerbate climate change. However, there are probably no alternatives to oil that meet all of these criteria. If we had started planning for peak oil 30 years ago—and we could have because it was predicted even before that—with a transition to other energies, public transit, energy-efficient building, and a different built environment than our current sprawling one, we could have avoided much of the likely disruption that is coming. However, we did not do this. So, once we pass peak and begin removing huge quantities of energy inputs to our current ways of living, we will notice it profoundly.

It is thought that nothing that governments do now can entirely prevent some of the challenges that are coming, because we cannot scale up any new energy regime rapidly enough. Experts on peak oil have argued that communities must start planning for this by enhancing their community resilience, by re-localizing and provisioning food locally, for example. The impacts are wide-ranging and the work that needs to be done is extensive. More can be read about this at http://postcarboncities.net and other sources. Many U.S. cities have begun this planning. For example, Portland, Oregon’s peak oil planning describes the different way of life that is coming and what must be done.

The Program on Global Sustainability and Health that Schwartz is a member of describes future communities as:

• Locally based
• Decentralized
• Downscaled
• Low energy
• Resource conserving
• Reorganized for local and regional food production and distribution
• Based on international cooperation

The U.S. Department of Energy has established a goal of supplying 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.

Wind currently supplies 0.8 percent, and the DOE says the goal would require the number of turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 per year in 2006 to almost 7000 per year in 2017. Whew.

Duke University's Climate Change Policy Partnership issued a policy brief last week echoing some of the concerns brought out in the DOE's July report. In summary, the wind power industry, just like other alternative energy sectors, will have a difficult time meeting these ambitious goals.

"While the DOE goal for wind power is inspiring, we must recognize that it will not be easy," said lead author Chi-Jen Yang. "In 2007, the nation's total installed wind power capacity was 16.9 gigawatts. Annual growth rates during the last decade hovered around 20 percent. High natural gas prices contributed to this rapid growth. If natural gas prices drop, wind power's competitiveness might decline significantly. To reach the DOE target of 305 gigawatts by 2030, annual wind power installation must maintain an average growth rate of 14 percent for the next 22 years. Whether or not we can maintain such a high rate over decades depends on the policies we enact in the next few years."

Well looky here, at least one natural gas company is already requesting a rate drop because of the decline in wholesale prices. (And more declines could come if the auto industry goes bankrupt.)

Yang elaborates on the barriers faced by the wind industry:
• Long-term investment uncertainty;
• Transmission Limitations;
• Wind turbine shortage, quality and reliability;
• Workforce education and training;
• Research and development; and
• Siting and landscape issues.

We basically have 21 years to make this happen. Anybody think this goal is achievable?

I just found this out today, but apparently a national energy forum is taking place on Wednesday and Thursday. It's free and online.

Details from a press release:

WHO: Fortune 500 CEOs, COOs, CFOs, public policy leaders, sustainability & energy experts & innovators of energy products & services.

WHAT: www.VirtualEnergyForum.com, a free online-only conference, brings together 5,000 Fortune 500 executives, public policy leaders & energy innovators in an innovative interactive format. Live video presentations by energy experts, with questions answered real-time.

Topics: Obama administration, federal funding, municipal or public works, green building, energy-efficient technologies, sustainability, alternative energy, clean technologies, and manufacturing.

WHEN: Wednesday and Thursday, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST.

WHERE: Entirely online at www.VirtualEnergyForum.com. Register and Login Dec. 10-11 to attend this live, interactive event, from the ease of your PC. To view coverage of the last Virtual Energy Forum by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, or to view the complete list of speakers and agenda, visit www.VirtualEnergyForum.com.

WHY: President-elect Barack Obama pledged on Dec. 6 to launch the biggest public works program since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s. The estimated $700 Billion plan is projected to include a push to make federal buildings more energy efficient.

The Virtual Energy Forum includes speaker sessions that address this topic, including:

· Mike Kearney of Siemens Building Technologies, speaking on "Practical Strategies to Green Existing Buildings" on Thursday at 4:30 p.m.

· Kevin Kampschroer, US General Services Administration, "Making the Federal Green Building a Reality" on Thursday at 5:15 p.m.

· Public sector keynote speakers at the event include:

o The Honorable James T. Kelliher, Chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

o The Honorable Ed Markey, US House Select Committee on Energy Independence

o Kathleen Hogan, US Environmental Protection Agency

o Paul P. Bollinger Jr., United States Army

o Kevin W. Billings, of the United States Air Force.

This sounds interesting and I will try to check it out this week.

Supporters of President-elect Barack Obama are coming together on Dec. 13 and 14 to discuss what ideas they have. His transition team will be collecting the feedback and is encouraging people to sign up to host or attend a "Change is Coming" house meeting.

This would be a good opportunity for the public to talk about the challenges the country is facing in the areas of energy and the environment and brainstorm ways to address it on the federal level (although individual and community action might be the most effective in the long run).

Check out Obama's agenda concerning these matters and let me know if you host a meeting next weekend. Three meetings are already listed for Greensboro.

The national Interfaith Power & Light organization is sponsoring a contest in 2009 to motivate faith congregations to lower their carbon emissions. Those that enter by Dec. 31 of this year and compete during the next year will be eligible to win $5,000 in cash prizes. Find out more here.

Other events:
* The Solar Energy Research Center and the Research Triangle Energy Consortium will hold a symposium on next generation photovoltaics and solar fuels in January at UNC Chapel Hill.

* The N.C. Sustainable Energy Association will begin taking early bird registrations for a February energy forum called "Making Energy Work."

* Clergy and laity can register for a "Caring for Creation" conference in March at Lake Junaluska Retreat Center. Find out more here.

Check this out.

Update: The Oil Drum will be providing a series of analyses and commentary on the World Energy Outlook. The Oil Drum is a superb collaborative energy analysis site so I encourage you to check it out.

The International Energy Agency released its much-anticipated, exhaustive (and leaked) 2008 World Energy Outlook today. The major concern? Constrained investment in a global recession will prevent companies from providing oil when we really need it.

Find the executive summary here and an easily digestible fact sheet here.

From the Financial Times:

"The organisation found that even with investment, the fields were declining at 6.7 per cent and that this rate was accelerating. That means that 45m barrels a day would have to be found and produced in the coming 22 years even if world demand remained completely unchanged. As it stands however, the IEA expects demand to rise from 85m bpd in 2007 to 106m b/d in 2030, making the challenge that much greater....

Many of the most sharply declining fields lie in developed countries, including in areas such as the North Sea and Alaska. This means the west will become less and less of a player in terms of production, while Persian Gulf countries become more important.

The west’s declining importance applies to its role not just as a supplier of oil but a customer. "We think OECD oil demand has peaked,” Mr Birol said, adding: “The OECD countries’ role in the energy world is becoming less and less important.”

Obviously, oil supplies are not our biggest problem right now, what with demand tanking and prices at roughly $60 per barrel. But what happens when demand picks back up?

Oh, and if you still have time after reading the IEA report, check out what the U.S. Government Accountability Office has to say about when we will see widespread carbon capture: No time soon.

Good summaries of carbon sequestration here and here.

President Bush and many educators have worked over the past several years to close the academic achievement gap between groups of students. Should his educational legacy also include closing the nature gap as well?

The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) is gathering support for the No Child Left Inside Act, a federal bill that would offer states incentives to develop Environmental Literacy Plans and integrate environmental education across K-12 curricula. The No Child Left Inside Act aims to ensure that schools have the resources and training necessary to help the next generation understand and address the challenges of protecting the environment.

Connecting children with nature is a goal that is beginning to gain steam here in Greensboro. Last Saturday, about 30 people viewed a documentary at The HIVE in Glenwood about the disconnect between today's generation of children and nature and unstructured play.

Given that No Child Left Behind has been underfunded since its inception and criticized for faulty implementation, I'm not sure another federal law is the best approach toward this issue. However, a healthy dialogue about the children's lack of exposure to the outdoors is needed.

I oscillate between striving for simplicity and security, flexibility and permanency. For more than a year my husband and I have been trying to decide whether to continue renting in Greensboro or make the commitment and try homeownership again.

But the beacon toward homeownership burns brightly when I see the work going on with these urban homesteaders in Pasadena, Calif. They show what is possible when you stop complaining about politicians and corporations and start making changes in your own life. This family's personal efforts to produce more of their own food and become energy independent has turned into a formal non-profit educational tool and a revolution. I want to join in.

Check out this video about the Homegrown Revolution:

I believe this spirit is catching on in Greensboro. Yesterday, I spoke to two Glenwood residents, one a teacher who has a community garden plot and is starting a garden in her backyard; the other who intends to microfarm in a neighbor's yard. I myself have a garden plot and some herbs growing for the first time on my apartment patio.

What if one out of every 10 homeowners in Greensboro had a 2008 version of a Victory Garden? What if apartment complexes provided space for residents to develop their green thumbs? Imagine the possibilities for both income generation, self-sufficiency and better health.

One might scoff at this idea and say, "Hey, it's just easier to buy one's food at a supermarket. If everyone gardened at home, imagine the possibilities for businesses to close and people to lose their jobs!"

My response is people are already losing their jobs due to global wage arbitrage and the consolidation of corporations. I believe that food reliant on fossil fuels for production and transportation is a system that is under stress now and people need an alternative.

I also believe that if you both provide the infrastructure and education on how to microfarm, more people will do it. It may take time, but it will happen. For example, as an apartment dweller I started gardening when a community garden opened up in Glenwood. The infrastructure provided an outlet for me to exercise my interest. It's kind of like the argument that people don't bike in Greensboro so why pay to expand bike lanes. Well, it's hard for people to bike with no lanes! Chicken and egg.

Shell just released a report summing up the dialogue that occurred between company executives and the consumers, community groups and politicians in 50 cities over the past two years. The purpose of the tour was to better educate the public about the challenges the country will face in diversifying its energy portfolio and to find out what was on the minds of the average Sally and Steve.

So what did Shell learn? A few notable points:

Further along the coast, in the Southeast, we found a focus on education. Residents want the public to be more aware of the current energy situation -- and they also emphasized the need to educate elected officials. We found considerable support for increased access to domestic resources and greater refinery output, again balanced by a concern for safety and environmental protection. Clean coal and carbon sequestration were in the mix. We also heard a call for greater fuel efficiency through automotive technology improvements and Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, commonly referred to as CAFE standards. Throughout the state of Florida, residents told us that they did not want, and would fight, new exploration and production off the Florida coast."

Shell stated in its report that while it does not buy the "peak oil" argument (instead believing in a plateau and then general decline of oil supplies), the company is concerned about unrealistic expectations of energy independence from the public:

"What was most frightening? The overwhelming disconnect between the perceptions of many consumers and the hard realities of the energy picture. This is the crux of our dilemma as a country in determining an energy path forward – the belief that there are easy answers that are readily available, when in reality the choices we have to make will not come easily or swiftly."

Obviously there is a disconnect in the political sphere when our Congressmen and women are busy talking about profits from greedy oil companies rather than engaging in a comprehensive public discussion about the changing energy environment we find ourselves in. We need to move from scapegoating to honestly assessing our predicament and devising appropriate strategies for adaptation.

Check out today's New York Times article about the U.S. Department of Agriculture issuing the nation's largest recall of ground beef (143 million pounds). It follows the airing of a scandalous undercover video showing workers abusing downed cows. How many times do you have to hear/see stuff like this before you just give up eating beef? 

This is the cutest little thing: Undriver licenses that were issued in Ballard, Wash., last year as a way to discourage automobile dependency (part of a Sustainable Ballard initiative). One woman writes about her experience for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.