I recently replaced the old water heater in my house. The old heater was, unfortunately, electric which is far less efficient, more expensive, and carbon intensive to run then a gas water heater. But, as retrofitting the house to accommodate a gas water heater was prohibitively expensive, electric it must stay. I discovered an interesting new technology however, which is the only Energystar rated electric water heater, the electric heat pump. The top electric heat pump is the GE GeoSpring which uses less then half the electricity of a normal electric water heater by using heat in the ambient air temperature to warm water through a heat pump exchange. The Energy Guide rating of a GE GeoSpring says that its annual cost of running is $199, which is a huge improvement over the top rated standard GE electric water heater of $501 a year.
I also unfortunately discovered that the GeoSpring is not for everyone - it is just slightly larger then a standard water heater (which in my case made it impossible to fit underneath the old water hookups coming out of the wall) and since it uses surrounding air it requires at least 5 inches of open space on all sides of the heater and a well ventilated or open room to work efficiently. The heat pump works best when ambient air is warmer, so it will not be as efficient in cold regions, and it actually puts out cold air so you probably wouldn't want it competing with your heating system in a cold climate anyway. This however is perfect for typically warmer climates like California or the Southwest. The space requirements both for the size of the heater and the air flow means it would most easily replace systems that are already installed in the garage or other large space, and all of the hook ups are the same as a standard electric heater. Don't worry about 'energy efficient' meaning poor performance either - the heat pump actually heats water faster, more consistently, and more of it then a standard.
The biggest drawback most people see however, is the price tag. Currently the GeoSpring sells for $1400 to $1600. Up until the end of this year federal stimulus money will write off a third of that, and additional rebates are available through states and local utilities which could make the upfront cost competitive with a standard electric heater. All these rebates expire at the end of the year, however, and few people are willing to shell out $1500 when they could shell out $500 or less. A GeoSpring is still a good investment for any willing to do the math however.
If you use as much hot water as the Energy Guide estimates when they calculate average yearly cost of running a hot water heater, and large households use more, that means you would save $300 a year by switching to a heat pump. At that rate, the heat pump would make up the $1000 difference in just over 3 years, and its entire cost in 5. Add all this up over the lifetime of the pump and you can save thousands of dollars, about an extra $1500 after it has paid itself off if you only keep it for 10 years. The way todays stock market has been performing, I'd say a guarantee of at least doubling your money is a pretty good investment.
Learn more at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=heat_pump.pr_savings_benefits and http://www.geappliances.com/heat-pump-hot-water-heater/
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
An Island of Green
In the most densely populated parts of the United States, our surroundings are largely coated in concrete and asphalt. The natural hydrology of the land has been interrupted. Instead of rainwater runoff naturally being absorbed into the soil, our cities must build gargantuan sewer systems connected to a web of storm drains that contaminates our clean water with all the oily residues washed off the city streets. It is an expensive and inefficient system. In New York City, legislation nearly eliminated discharges of dirty water by manufacturing, but their water ways are still none that you'd want to swim in. Over 75% of the contaminants still in the rivers come from the runoff from city streets.
At New York University's Environmental Health Clinic they have come up with a creative solution to this and many other environmental problems plaguing the city. The Environmental Health Clinic at NYU, also known as the X clinic, isn't like other university health clinics. You still make an appointment to come in and discuss a health concern, but instead of giving you prescription medications, they prescribe actions. "Patients" may be prescribed to perform local data collection or any number of 'urban interventions' aimed at understanding and improving environmental health. They may also be given 'referrals' to specific art and design projects, environmental organizations or local government and civil society groups that can utilize the data and actions prescribed to promote social change.
The NoPARK project is one XRx prescribed. A NoPARK takes a standard 'no parking' zone, mostly those associated with fire hydrants, and turns the space into a green zone. By replacing the asphalt with low growing plants like mosses and grass, these micro-engineered green spaces prevent storm water runoff, purifying the water before it rejoins the water system. This living space is a low maintenance surface cover that stabilizes the soil, replenishes groundwater, alleviates strain on overtaxed sewer systems, and provides beautiful green space in the middle of the city. The NoPARK zone is still accessible by emergency vehicles which can simply park on top of the resilient vegetation. The XClinic estimates that if every 'no parking' zone was turned into a green space in NY city, 97% of all the cities contaminated runoff would be eliminated.
To find out more about this and other environmental health prescriptions, visit http://www.environmentalhealthclinic.net/ or watch a fascinating TedTalk by director of the XClinic Natalie Jeremijenko at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/natalie_jeremijenko_the_art_of_the_eco_mindshift.html and learn how to perform your own random acts of eco-action.
At New York University's Environmental Health Clinic they have come up with a creative solution to this and many other environmental problems plaguing the city. The Environmental Health Clinic at NYU, also known as the X clinic, isn't like other university health clinics. You still make an appointment to come in and discuss a health concern, but instead of giving you prescription medications, they prescribe actions. "Patients" may be prescribed to perform local data collection or any number of 'urban interventions' aimed at understanding and improving environmental health. They may also be given 'referrals' to specific art and design projects, environmental organizations or local government and civil society groups that can utilize the data and actions prescribed to promote social change.
The NoPARK project is one XRx prescribed. A NoPARK takes a standard 'no parking' zone, mostly those associated with fire hydrants, and turns the space into a green zone. By replacing the asphalt with low growing plants like mosses and grass, these micro-engineered green spaces prevent storm water runoff, purifying the water before it rejoins the water system. This living space is a low maintenance surface cover that stabilizes the soil, replenishes groundwater, alleviates strain on overtaxed sewer systems, and provides beautiful green space in the middle of the city. The NoPARK zone is still accessible by emergency vehicles which can simply park on top of the resilient vegetation. The XClinic estimates that if every 'no parking' zone was turned into a green space in NY city, 97% of all the cities contaminated runoff would be eliminated.
To find out more about this and other environmental health prescriptions, visit http://www.environmentalhealthclinic.net/ or watch a fascinating TedTalk by director of the XClinic Natalie Jeremijenko at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/natalie_jeremijenko_the_art_of_the_eco_mindshift.html and learn how to perform your own random acts of eco-action.
Monday, December 20, 2010
California, Carbon Trading and Agriculture
On December 16th California Air Resources Board of approved a cap-and-trade carbon emissions trading scheme for the state. The program, which takes effect in 2012, is supposed to reduce the state's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The legislation is a large part of the environmental legacy that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has worked hard to develop. There is much concern from critics on both sides of the issue concerning the effectiveness of the carbon-trading scheme to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and its economic effect on businesses in the state. What if California could use this new legislation to actually encourage a growing sub-sector of the mainstay of the state's economy while reducing green house gas emissions?
Agriculture is by far the most lucrative industry in the state, and while it may not produce visible clouds of black smoke pumping into the atmosphere, it is actually a large source of green house gases. Commercial livestock and dairy operations produce a huge amount of methane gas, around 25% of the worlds total, which is 21 times as potent a green house gas as carbon dioxide. It also causes soil degradation and runoff, as does commercial crop production. It is estimated that 7% of net carbon in the atmosphere is a direct result of soil loss.
The worlds cultivated soil contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere - this is a double edged sword because as we strip the soils for agricultural purposes we release all of this carbon. If we were to adopt more sustainable farming practices however, we could actually rebuild soil and suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Many consumers are already turning away from commercial industrialized food, as research continues to show that it is negatively impacting our health not only by degrading our clean air and clean water, but also by exposing us to a toxic mix of chemicals and hormones. The "Slow Food" movement is already growing, and organic, biointensive, permiculture and family owned-and-operated farms are becoming a larger part of the agricultural economy.
If California were to include agricultural emissions and runoff as a source of atmospheric green house gases, industrial farms using unsustainable practices would be required to have permits for all the carbon they waste. But, farms that adopted measures that would actually improve soil health could receive carbon credits which they could sell for an increased profit. If cattle were raised on well managed grasslands instead of commercial feedlots, the grasslands would be a carbon sink and the cattle would not produce methane due to unnatural stress on their digestion system. Thus the conversion cost of switching from a feedlot to a free-range operation could be easily covered not only be reduced input costs and increased product quality, but by the sale of carbon credits. This would encourage the development of the sustainable agriculture industry in California, promoting family owned operations and increasing the number of skilled agricultural jobs.
Not only would this reduce the states total green house gas emissions, it would also improve the states water supply. Inefficient chemically dependent agriculture uses a larger amount of water due to poor soil quality, leading to increased runoff. This contaminates waterways with the harmful agricultural chemicals, and with increased mineral runoff like selenium, a naturally occurring element in California soils which has accumulated so much in soils and waterways the city of Sacramento recently voted to double water rates to pay for a new filtration system to remove it. In a water scarce state like California, encouraging farmers to employ methods that will reduce their water use and eliminate polluted runoff could save the state billions in future water development projects. Healthy soils and waterways also reduce the potential of fires and flooding, both of which are huge economic drains throughout the state.
Californians would also save huge amounts of money in healthcare costs because their air, water, and food would be cleaner and healthier. In the long run, not only would including agricultural systems in a cap-and-trade scheme lead to improved air quality and reduced risk of climate change, it would encourage local agricultural development, sustain this development in the future leading to permanent job growth, reduce state and individual costs for water and healthcare, improve our food supply and make it more self-sufficient.
Even if agricultural waste doesn't get included in the cap-and-trade legislation, you can still help all of this come about by buying sustainably grown food from a local farmer. It's cheaper then you think.
Agriculture is by far the most lucrative industry in the state, and while it may not produce visible clouds of black smoke pumping into the atmosphere, it is actually a large source of green house gases. Commercial livestock and dairy operations produce a huge amount of methane gas, around 25% of the worlds total, which is 21 times as potent a green house gas as carbon dioxide. It also causes soil degradation and runoff, as does commercial crop production. It is estimated that 7% of net carbon in the atmosphere is a direct result of soil loss.
The worlds cultivated soil contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere - this is a double edged sword because as we strip the soils for agricultural purposes we release all of this carbon. If we were to adopt more sustainable farming practices however, we could actually rebuild soil and suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Many consumers are already turning away from commercial industrialized food, as research continues to show that it is negatively impacting our health not only by degrading our clean air and clean water, but also by exposing us to a toxic mix of chemicals and hormones. The "Slow Food" movement is already growing, and organic, biointensive, permiculture and family owned-and-operated farms are becoming a larger part of the agricultural economy.
If California were to include agricultural emissions and runoff as a source of atmospheric green house gases, industrial farms using unsustainable practices would be required to have permits for all the carbon they waste. But, farms that adopted measures that would actually improve soil health could receive carbon credits which they could sell for an increased profit. If cattle were raised on well managed grasslands instead of commercial feedlots, the grasslands would be a carbon sink and the cattle would not produce methane due to unnatural stress on their digestion system. Thus the conversion cost of switching from a feedlot to a free-range operation could be easily covered not only be reduced input costs and increased product quality, but by the sale of carbon credits. This would encourage the development of the sustainable agriculture industry in California, promoting family owned operations and increasing the number of skilled agricultural jobs.
Not only would this reduce the states total green house gas emissions, it would also improve the states water supply. Inefficient chemically dependent agriculture uses a larger amount of water due to poor soil quality, leading to increased runoff. This contaminates waterways with the harmful agricultural chemicals, and with increased mineral runoff like selenium, a naturally occurring element in California soils which has accumulated so much in soils and waterways the city of Sacramento recently voted to double water rates to pay for a new filtration system to remove it. In a water scarce state like California, encouraging farmers to employ methods that will reduce their water use and eliminate polluted runoff could save the state billions in future water development projects. Healthy soils and waterways also reduce the potential of fires and flooding, both of which are huge economic drains throughout the state.
Californians would also save huge amounts of money in healthcare costs because their air, water, and food would be cleaner and healthier. In the long run, not only would including agricultural systems in a cap-and-trade scheme lead to improved air quality and reduced risk of climate change, it would encourage local agricultural development, sustain this development in the future leading to permanent job growth, reduce state and individual costs for water and healthcare, improve our food supply and make it more self-sufficient.
Even if agricultural waste doesn't get included in the cap-and-trade legislation, you can still help all of this come about by buying sustainably grown food from a local farmer. It's cheaper then you think.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Will Nuclear Ever be a Green Energy Option?
In some regards, nuclear power seems like the perfect clean energy alternative: it can produce huge amounts of reliable power as cheaply as coal or natural gas while producing no emissions. Nuclear power plants require a huge capital outlay to build however, as they are vast and complicated structures full of custom fabricated parts. Then of course there's the problem that the public is terrified of them.
Ever since Three Mile Island in 1979, and Chernobyl in 1986 Americans have not been too keen on nuclear power. A small chance of a catastrophic disaster is enough to turn anyones stomach. Many European countries continue to employ much more nuclear power facilities then the United States, with France leading as the world's largest exporter or electricity and nuclear technology as 77% of their electricity is powered by nuclear. The United States now not only has to overcome a huge hurdle of public distaste for nuclear, but also a great lag in nuclear technology. France, having had lots of practice building nuclear power plants, is able to build much safer ones then the US. But any nuclear power plant eventually has to deal with the largest problem of all - what to do with the leftovers. This problem is so controversial, it has largely gone unaddressed.
There are some creative new breakthroughs in nuclear technology however that would greatly reduce all of these problems. At Oregon State University's Nuclear Radiation Center they are developing 'micro-nuke' technology. Prototypes of a nuclear reactor the size of large van can produce smaller amounts of electricity, but are just as efficient as large scale commercial plants, are simpler, and safer. The micro-nuke functions almost like a large battery - the system totally enclosed and insulated from the outside world and able to run independently for long periods of time. The light water system, which like commercial scale plants uses nuclear fission energy to heat water to drive a steam turbine to generate electricity, is much simpler to build and can be cheaply mass produced. Thus micro-nukes can be easily made, shipped, and stored anywhere, potentially providing power to remote locations and safely keeping the internal nuclear reactor safe from terrorists. When it finally is time to replace the used nuclear fuel, the old fuel can be easily removed and transported and new fuel installed, much like changing a cartridge.
NuScale Power, a commercial spinoff of the OSU center, says it could have commercially marketable models approved and ready by 2016 with a batch of 12 micro-nukes able to replace decommissioned existing commercial plants, so this technology is not far off either. While meltdowns are still a possibility, because of the nukes much smaller size and isolation, any breach would not be nearly so catastrophic and much more easily contained. While effective systems of disposal of used fuel have still yet to be developed, micro-nukes represent one of the first major leaps forward in the potential of clean, green, safe nuclear power. For more details on how a micro-nuke works, check out the Discover article, The Big Potential of Micro Nukes.
Ever since Three Mile Island in 1979, and Chernobyl in 1986 Americans have not been too keen on nuclear power. A small chance of a catastrophic disaster is enough to turn anyones stomach. Many European countries continue to employ much more nuclear power facilities then the United States, with France leading as the world's largest exporter or electricity and nuclear technology as 77% of their electricity is powered by nuclear. The United States now not only has to overcome a huge hurdle of public distaste for nuclear, but also a great lag in nuclear technology. France, having had lots of practice building nuclear power plants, is able to build much safer ones then the US. But any nuclear power plant eventually has to deal with the largest problem of all - what to do with the leftovers. This problem is so controversial, it has largely gone unaddressed.
There are some creative new breakthroughs in nuclear technology however that would greatly reduce all of these problems. At Oregon State University's Nuclear Radiation Center they are developing 'micro-nuke' technology. Prototypes of a nuclear reactor the size of large van can produce smaller amounts of electricity, but are just as efficient as large scale commercial plants, are simpler, and safer. The micro-nuke functions almost like a large battery - the system totally enclosed and insulated from the outside world and able to run independently for long periods of time. The light water system, which like commercial scale plants uses nuclear fission energy to heat water to drive a steam turbine to generate electricity, is much simpler to build and can be cheaply mass produced. Thus micro-nukes can be easily made, shipped, and stored anywhere, potentially providing power to remote locations and safely keeping the internal nuclear reactor safe from terrorists. When it finally is time to replace the used nuclear fuel, the old fuel can be easily removed and transported and new fuel installed, much like changing a cartridge.
NuScale Power, a commercial spinoff of the OSU center, says it could have commercially marketable models approved and ready by 2016 with a batch of 12 micro-nukes able to replace decommissioned existing commercial plants, so this technology is not far off either. While meltdowns are still a possibility, because of the nukes much smaller size and isolation, any breach would not be nearly so catastrophic and much more easily contained. While effective systems of disposal of used fuel have still yet to be developed, micro-nukes represent one of the first major leaps forward in the potential of clean, green, safe nuclear power. For more details on how a micro-nuke works, check out the Discover article, The Big Potential of Micro Nukes.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Energy Efficiency: Identifying Big Savings Potential
America runs on, well energy. Most of it derived from coal, natural gas and petroleum all of which contribute to carbon buildup in the atmosphere. Currently clean technologies like solar, wind and geothermal only amount to 1% of the Unites States total energy usage, so there's a lot of potential to greatly increase that number for a huge amount of carbon savings. But the biggest piece of low hanging carbon reduction fruit just waiting to be picked, is improving efficiency. Not just, "turn off the lights when you leave the room" kind of efficiency, but reducing the amount of losses from waste during generation, transmission, and use. The total amount of energy wasted in this way? 57%, meaning more energy is lost everyday then we actually use to power all the gizmos and gadgets we use on a regular basis.
So why all the waste and what's being done about it? One is efficiency on the demand side - making all those gizmos and gadgets we use more efficient. Because of federal and state efficiency regulations passed in 1972, refrigerator energy use is 75% lower today. Similar energy savings are possible in a whole range of products, from stronger building codes to reduce heating, cooling, and lighting costs, to electronics like tvs and computers that we use everyday. On a larger scale, encouraging "infill development" which encourages new businesses to use underutilized space already within city limits instead of 'sprawling' outwards saved the city of Portland 35% in carbon emissions, largely due to reduced driving.
Another efficiency potential which is spawning startups everywhere is replacing our electrical grid with a new "smart grid." Currently, our electrical grid is plagued by huge swings in electricity demand, with demand high during the day and low at night, and higher in hot summer months then cooler times of year. Smart grids which help store, use and deliver energy more efficiently help utility companies level out these peaks and troughs in demand, thereby eliminating the need for peak production plants and helping maximize a plants energy production throughout the day. Smart grids would not only make current energy production systems more reliable and prices less volatile, but would also help renewables break into the market by mitigating their disadvantage of being site and time dependent.
The most important thing that can be done to improve the efficiency of our energy systems? Consumers have to start buying with energy efficiency in mind. If the buyer demands it, the producers will work harder to supply it. More money is spent each year by the pet food industry on pet food research then is spent on energy technology research. If more money went to energy R&D, huge strides could be made in efficiency. But until then, we have to use the technology we have, so that means making sure you buy an energy star certified washer dryer and doing your laundry at night, because it will save energy, and save you some money.
So why all the waste and what's being done about it? One is efficiency on the demand side - making all those gizmos and gadgets we use more efficient. Because of federal and state efficiency regulations passed in 1972, refrigerator energy use is 75% lower today. Similar energy savings are possible in a whole range of products, from stronger building codes to reduce heating, cooling, and lighting costs, to electronics like tvs and computers that we use everyday. On a larger scale, encouraging "infill development" which encourages new businesses to use underutilized space already within city limits instead of 'sprawling' outwards saved the city of Portland 35% in carbon emissions, largely due to reduced driving.
Another efficiency potential which is spawning startups everywhere is replacing our electrical grid with a new "smart grid." Currently, our electrical grid is plagued by huge swings in electricity demand, with demand high during the day and low at night, and higher in hot summer months then cooler times of year. Smart grids which help store, use and deliver energy more efficiently help utility companies level out these peaks and troughs in demand, thereby eliminating the need for peak production plants and helping maximize a plants energy production throughout the day. Smart grids would not only make current energy production systems more reliable and prices less volatile, but would also help renewables break into the market by mitigating their disadvantage of being site and time dependent.
The most important thing that can be done to improve the efficiency of our energy systems? Consumers have to start buying with energy efficiency in mind. If the buyer demands it, the producers will work harder to supply it. More money is spent each year by the pet food industry on pet food research then is spent on energy technology research. If more money went to energy R&D, huge strides could be made in efficiency. But until then, we have to use the technology we have, so that means making sure you buy an energy star certified washer dryer and doing your laundry at night, because it will save energy, and save you some money.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
An Update to California Water Issues
The last major Bureau of Reclamation Project in California was the New Melones Dam in 1983, which after causing much environmental and recreational opposition, heralded the end of major water development projects. But California's water issues remain. In 1992 the Central Valley Water Improvement Act was passed to address the impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitat. While the CVPIA has led to reductions of water delivery for agricultural use in the San Joaquin Valley (one of the largest beneficiaries of over-subsidized water from past water development projects), regulated and raised the cost of hydroelectric power, and spent over $1 billion in obligated funds, it has only completed 7 of 34 restoration projects. The Act was supposed to double salmon populations by 2002, but anadromous fish populations have only continued to decline. All these efforts thus far have been too little too late, as most California fish populations are still not receiving the amount of water or water quality naturalist and scientists recommend that they need to survive. All the while rainfall since the 1982-83 flood as been below average and many reservoirs continue to be filled below capacity as water demand continues to grow. The universal power of the large agricultural companies in the south is finally beginning to yield to other groups, such as the salmon fisherman who's business has declined exponentially, tourism which draws millions of users to wild rivers around the state for recreational use, and wetlands habitat, 95% of which is already lost in the state, which California is belatedly learning is incredibly important not just as habitat for migratory birds (which pleases recreational hunters and birders) but also for flood control and water quality. The State government has various teams assembled trying to come up with solutions to the state many and contrary water needs, and even the idea of Peripheral Canal to shuttle water past the Delta to southern California. But when a Peripheral Canal plan says it will deliver more water to southern California, AND deliver more clean water to the Delta, you can't help but wonder if someone is playing with the numbers again.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Cadillac Desert: A history of water development in the west
I just finished Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner, a fascinating documentation of how the west was tamed through massive federally funded water development projects. If you have ever been to California, you may have noticed the strange contrast between the natural semi-arid landscape and the miles and miles of fertile farmland. California has the most lucrative farming industry of the United States, and yet it really should not exist. Neither should cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas surrounded as they are by desert. Yet they continue to grow. How was all of this made possible? As Marc Reisner elucidates, largely due to a large group of engineers with a strong desire to build monumental structures and huge amounts of federal subsidies in pork-barrel projects.
The West, and especially California, offered early Americans a frontier to start over and create a new and profitable life. California's fertile soil mild climate made it ideal for growing high value commodities like citrus, almonds, and avocados. With the completion of the transcontinental railroad making crops deliverable across the continent, farmers who had previously barely made a living growing wheat in the mid west were growing rich on California soil. But all of this wealth was severely limited by lack of water to irrigate croplands. Even with the bonanza the farmers were experiencing, they did not have the kind of huge capital necessary to build irrigation projects on the massive scale necessary to bring water to the Central Valley.
Now, whatever your thoughts are on 'Big Government" or when or who began it, the beginning really started with the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau began in the early 1900s to build irrigation projects to help provide water, really really cheap water, to small farmers out west. It's counterpart, and rival, was and is the Corp of Engineers who's primary goal to build flood control projects. Both of these agencies were made up of hundreds, and eventually thousands, of engineers who were paid to build dams. And they really liked to build dams. Not only did it provide their bread and butter, but who would not love the ability to tame the mighty ragging Colorado River with a structure as monumentally impressive as Hoover Dam? While the Bureau was charged with conceiving projects which would create economic growth for the country by encouraging settlement of the west and the growth of small farmers, its personal goal was to get as many dam projects through Congress as possible so it could continue to build. It and the Corps both twisted the economics behind irrigation and flood control projects to get projects built that would turn out to be economic sink holes, open land to irrigation farming that had no business being farmed, flood communities and destroy countless amounts of wildlife habitat and scenic rivers. Dams were built that sold farmers water for 10 cents on the dollar of what the water actually cost, which means the American public paid for the other 90 cents on the dollar growing the same surplus crops Eastern farmers were being paid not to grow.
Not that it was all bad. Water development created enormous amounts of wealth (though often for a small group of people) and the hydroelectric power the went along with many of the projects is probably one of the most important resources we possessed that allowed us to out produce and hence beat Germany in World War II. But deceitful tactics used to get most of these dams built represent the worst of bureaucratic waste - agencies and projects that were initially valuable and necessary but came to function merely to keep their own existence alive.
Why was this allowed to happen? Mainly because Congressmen encouraged it. Getting a dam built in your district, while it may have cost the American public as a whole a huge and unnecessary amount of money, brought jobs and money to that district. So dam projects became the ultimate pork barrel tool. Presidents like Carter and Reagan who tried to squelch the dam pork barrel machine met harsh resistance, and all efforts eventually failed.
Through the combination of massive inflation, rising national debt, and a growing environmental movement dam development has dropped precipitously in the past three decades, though California and much of the other western states will soon have to deal with their continual water issues. Why is all of this important for the average citizen to know? Because whatever water development projects anyone is trying to sell or discredit in your area, it's important to not listen to the politics and rhetoric and look at the facts to decide if a project really makes sense. While Colorado may have huge fields of alfalfa growing in its arid landscape, if the crop is worth only a couple of hundred million dollars a year, while Colorado's tourism industry brings in well over five BILLION dollars a year, does it really make sense to divert most of Colorado's water at huge expense to water these crops?
The West, and especially California, offered early Americans a frontier to start over and create a new and profitable life. California's fertile soil mild climate made it ideal for growing high value commodities like citrus, almonds, and avocados. With the completion of the transcontinental railroad making crops deliverable across the continent, farmers who had previously barely made a living growing wheat in the mid west were growing rich on California soil. But all of this wealth was severely limited by lack of water to irrigate croplands. Even with the bonanza the farmers were experiencing, they did not have the kind of huge capital necessary to build irrigation projects on the massive scale necessary to bring water to the Central Valley.
Now, whatever your thoughts are on 'Big Government" or when or who began it, the beginning really started with the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau began in the early 1900s to build irrigation projects to help provide water, really really cheap water, to small farmers out west. It's counterpart, and rival, was and is the Corp of Engineers who's primary goal to build flood control projects. Both of these agencies were made up of hundreds, and eventually thousands, of engineers who were paid to build dams. And they really liked to build dams. Not only did it provide their bread and butter, but who would not love the ability to tame the mighty ragging Colorado River with a structure as monumentally impressive as Hoover Dam? While the Bureau was charged with conceiving projects which would create economic growth for the country by encouraging settlement of the west and the growth of small farmers, its personal goal was to get as many dam projects through Congress as possible so it could continue to build. It and the Corps both twisted the economics behind irrigation and flood control projects to get projects built that would turn out to be economic sink holes, open land to irrigation farming that had no business being farmed, flood communities and destroy countless amounts of wildlife habitat and scenic rivers. Dams were built that sold farmers water for 10 cents on the dollar of what the water actually cost, which means the American public paid for the other 90 cents on the dollar growing the same surplus crops Eastern farmers were being paid not to grow.
Not that it was all bad. Water development created enormous amounts of wealth (though often for a small group of people) and the hydroelectric power the went along with many of the projects is probably one of the most important resources we possessed that allowed us to out produce and hence beat Germany in World War II. But deceitful tactics used to get most of these dams built represent the worst of bureaucratic waste - agencies and projects that were initially valuable and necessary but came to function merely to keep their own existence alive.
Why was this allowed to happen? Mainly because Congressmen encouraged it. Getting a dam built in your district, while it may have cost the American public as a whole a huge and unnecessary amount of money, brought jobs and money to that district. So dam projects became the ultimate pork barrel tool. Presidents like Carter and Reagan who tried to squelch the dam pork barrel machine met harsh resistance, and all efforts eventually failed.
Through the combination of massive inflation, rising national debt, and a growing environmental movement dam development has dropped precipitously in the past three decades, though California and much of the other western states will soon have to deal with their continual water issues. Why is all of this important for the average citizen to know? Because whatever water development projects anyone is trying to sell or discredit in your area, it's important to not listen to the politics and rhetoric and look at the facts to decide if a project really makes sense. While Colorado may have huge fields of alfalfa growing in its arid landscape, if the crop is worth only a couple of hundred million dollars a year, while Colorado's tourism industry brings in well over five BILLION dollars a year, does it really make sense to divert most of Colorado's water at huge expense to water these crops?
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Good Guide, Making Voting with your Money Easy
The only real way that companies will change business practices to be more conscious of the environment, society, and public health is if consumers 'vote' accordingly and selectively buy only products that support practices with which they agree. Companies know this, and they know that 'going green' is a great marketing tactic to win over eco-conscience customers. But how many of the growing number of green labeled products on supermarket shelves are actually green?
While certification systems like "Cradle to Cradle," which requires in depth evidence of socially and environmentally beneficial practices, are in development, no one well recognized and respected certification is widely in use. Any product can claim to be 'green,' but this means little in practice. Which label, if any, is better, 'all natural', 'organic', 'hand made' or 'for sensitive skin'? With ingredient lists a mile long filled with unpronounceable ingredients its hard to know what to really look for. And an ingredients list doesn't give you any idea about the conditions in which the product was produced or how wasteful the process was. So what's a consumer to do?
Enter the Good Guide, an online resource to save consumers from "green wash' marketing and give simple, straightforward recommendations on the healthiest, most environmentally and socially responsible products out there. Goodguide.com is staffed by experts on environmental and labor policy, global supply chains, chemical risk assessment, life cycle assessment, environmental engineering, chemistry, nutrition, and sociology, all working together to create a comprehensive rating system that give products detailed scores on health (does the product contain ingredients with a known health concern), environment (how does the company rank in sustainability and conservation efforts), and society (working conditions and worker benefits and support of local communities). Through their website you can search or browse over 65,000 food, toys, personal care, and household products to easily learn about the best and worst products in a category. Whether you are looking for healthy, green, or socially responsible products the Good Guide makes it easy to sort and find the best product for you. Try it out, and see what's really in that bar of soap in your shower. www.goodguide.com
While certification systems like "Cradle to Cradle," which requires in depth evidence of socially and environmentally beneficial practices, are in development, no one well recognized and respected certification is widely in use. Any product can claim to be 'green,' but this means little in practice. Which label, if any, is better, 'all natural', 'organic', 'hand made' or 'for sensitive skin'? With ingredient lists a mile long filled with unpronounceable ingredients its hard to know what to really look for. And an ingredients list doesn't give you any idea about the conditions in which the product was produced or how wasteful the process was. So what's a consumer to do?
Enter the Good Guide, an online resource to save consumers from "green wash' marketing and give simple, straightforward recommendations on the healthiest, most environmentally and socially responsible products out there. Goodguide.com is staffed by experts on environmental and labor policy, global supply chains, chemical risk assessment, life cycle assessment, environmental engineering, chemistry, nutrition, and sociology, all working together to create a comprehensive rating system that give products detailed scores on health (does the product contain ingredients with a known health concern), environment (how does the company rank in sustainability and conservation efforts), and society (working conditions and worker benefits and support of local communities). Through their website you can search or browse over 65,000 food, toys, personal care, and household products to easily learn about the best and worst products in a category. Whether you are looking for healthy, green, or socially responsible products the Good Guide makes it easy to sort and find the best product for you. Try it out, and see what's really in that bar of soap in your shower. www.goodguide.com
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Food Safety Vote Tomorrow
On Nov. 17th the Senate will finally vote on the Food Safety Modernization Bill (S.510). After 2 years of some of the largest food safety recalls in US history, it is apparent that America's food system needs some fixing. But without the important Tester-Hagan and Manager's Amendments family farmers would be subject to onerous regulations meant to curb industrial scale producers responsible for the food safety crisis. The Amendments would exempt farmers who have gross sales of less than $500,000 and sell within 400 miles of their farm, thus preserving small scale, family run, and new farmers who sell mainly at local farmers markets. Help preserve the local foods movement by encouraging your Senators to vote for the Tester-Hagan and Manger's Amendments. For more information, visit www.fooddemocracynow.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)