It’s Getting Hot In Here

After a long break from blogging, I’m glad to have the time to get back! First of all, from my title you will have probably noticed that I’m partially against cellulosic and plug-in hybrids as the solution to the world food crisis that biofuels and oil are helping to fuel. Sure, cellulosic can ensure we don’t use corn for ethanol and we don’t change wheat, barley, and other crops to corn fields for ethanol production. Sure, we can use plug-in hybrids and, if we’re lucky to scale renewables enough, power them with clean electricity and wean ourselves off of coal and oil. But have you stopped to think about what that means? I bet Mr. Henry Ford would have told you that you don’t have to think about it, that you should just go ahead and support the “real” solutions… Right!

In the last two weeks, biofuels have been attacked more than ever before from many angles. The world food crisis has become so severe that anybody who supports any biofuel that either uses food crops or takes land that would have otherwise gone to food production is criticized sharply. The arguments against biofuels, especially corn ethanol, are clear.

·         First, ethanol produced from corn takes a chunk away from the corn that would otherwise go to direct human purposes, excluding livestock (of course, nobody ever questioned before the fact that directing corn and soybeans to cows makes the supply available for exports lower, and therefore keeps prices relatively higher; in other words, food prices before the current crisis could have been much lower if it wasn’t because of the luxury of eating high quantities of meat; maybe a big tax on meat can lower other food prices, which politician will be smart enough to propose this?).

·         Second, as the demand for corn and soybeans surges, land that was used for other purposes is converted to corn and soy fields, therefore increasing the cost of the other crops (wheat, barley, etc.) because they’re less available.

·         Lastly, using ethanol has no impact on how much oil we use because the energy balance is 0 or negative. On top of all this, we are losing benefits from cheaper ethanol that could be imported from Brazil if our goal was really to get rid of oil at the lowest possible cost.

So, we know all these things. We also know that the increasing price of oil, now nearly $125 per barrel, is also pushing food prices up, and that decreasing water supplies and crazier weather is also pitching in into the food price hikes we’re seeing. What we also know is that every policymaker and the public at large is thinking that the way out of this is making ethanol from something that doesn’t take up food or converting our cars to plug-in hybrids to have them run on electricity. So lots of money is going into cellulosic research and lots of venture capitalists are fully funding new ventures that hope to bring to market “environmentally-friendly” plug-in electric vehicles. At the same time, GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and other car companies are stepping up their development of these same technologies to bring such cars to market soon. What’s the problem with this?

Continue reading ‘Cellulosic, Plug-In Hybrids Are Biofuel Solutions? Think Again!’

As the ad campaigns intensified before tonight’s primaries, Hillary Clinton made the seriously Energy Dumb decision to promote a gas tax holiday as a way of demonstrating her supposed affinity for “the hard working American middle class.” Too bad the gas tax holiday won’t help anybody’s pocketbook but the oil companies. I guess Mrs. Clinton missed the memo from every single energy and economic policy expert out there! (Seriously, every one of them!)

While his opponent pandered for votes with empty promises of $30.00 in cash, Barack Obama, to his very strong credit, took the Energy Smart position and called the gas tax holiday proposal what it is: “a pander,” a cheap trick to buy your vote.

Here’s Obama’s clear, honest, Energy Smart response on the gas tax holiday (speaking on Meet the Press earlier this week)…

Continue reading ‘Barack Obama Shows Off His Energy Smarts on Gas Tax Holiday’

Hillary Clinton and John McCain support seriously Energy Dumb gas tax holiday

There’s Energy Smart, like Mark Udall and this slate of Energy Smart US Congressional candidates.

Then there’s seriously Energy Dumb, like touting a temporary gas tax holiday as an appropriate response to high gas and oil prices.

Hillary Clinton solidly aligned herself last week with the Energy Dumb camp, vociferously supporting a gas tax holiday first proposed by Energy Dumber John McCain that amounts to blatant pandering for votes.

This “quick fix” proposal, a three month suspension of the 18.4 cents/gallon federal gas tax during the summer “driving season,” would at best save the average American about $30.00 this summer. That’s right, Hillary Clinton and John McCain’s idea of a solution to high energy prices is to mail you a check for half a tank of gas!

So, is $30.00 enough to buy your vote?
Continue reading ‘Hillary Clinton Supports Seriously Energy Dumb Gas Tax “Holiday”’

Econ 101 taught us increased supply = lower prices. That’s the main argument for new liquefied natural gas import terminals. Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal warns things are a bit more complicated than that and we shouldn’t bet on LNG to reduce North American natural gas prices. This is Econ 202 stuff at least…

Amidst concerns about a potential North American natural gas supply crunch, several energy developers are betting big on new terminals to import liquefied natural gas into the United States market. Three terminals are proposed in Oregon, and they have generated considerably controversy and strong opposition from local communities.

There are many reasons to be concerned about imported liquefied natural gas, or LNG, natural gas that has been supercooled to -260 degrees F in order to turn it into a liquid ready to transport on specially-designed tankers from LNG exporting countries like Indonesia, Russia, Iran and Qatar. From increased dependence on foreign fossil fuels to increased greenhouse gas emissions, seized farmland for new pipelines and health and safety concerns, citizens of potentially impacted communities have found plenty of reasons to rally against LNG terminals and pipelines.

The principle argument to forge ahead with new LNG terminals despite these concerns is the assumption that increasing North American natural gas supplies with LNG imports will reduce prices. It’s a simple “laws” of supply and demand that increased supply will reduce prices, right? That’s what we all learned in economics 101, right?

Unfortunately, a recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal (April 18th) warns us that the economics of LNG is a bit more complicated than that. This is economics 202 stuff at least (the online copy is here, sub$cr. required).

The gist of the story is that we shouldn’t be betting on increased LNG imports to help lower natural gas prices in the US. Read on to find out why…
Continue reading ‘WSJ Says: Don’t Bet on LNG to Reduce US Natural Gas Prices’

You may have heard this piece of wisdom in Econ 101. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone is footing the bill.

The mass material affluence that characterizes much of American society is a testament to the power of our economic and political system. The cities we inhabit, the cars we drive, the gadgets we use, the ways we communicate, the food we eat, and the energy we consume are all products of its success.

But remember, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Someone is footing the bill.

Allow me to modify that statement. There is no such thing as a dollar menu. Transactions inflict costs on the real world that are not reflected in a market pricing system.

A friend of mine is particularly fond of McDonald’s Dollar menu, and makes a habit of ordering $1 cheeseburgers. The $1 he spends covers the costs McDonald’s has incurred - buying the ingredients, shipping, operational, and labor costs - and of course a slice of profit. However, those are only a fraction of his cheeseburger’s true cost. Enter the world of externalities.

The Economist defines an externality as “An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affects somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices.” (1) My friend’s dollar spent does not include the side-effects of cheeseburger consumption, such as longterm costs of carbon emitted by transport and methane toots of former cows. Entirely unconsidered is the irreversible loss of biodiversity from the conversion of rain forest to industrial soy-bean monocrops to feed the hamburgers-in-waiting of American factory farms (2). Humans and nonhumans alike bear the cost of our externalities.

Continue reading ‘Sustainable Justice’

On Fossil Fools Day congressional lawmakers confronted the five largest publicly traded oil companies on their record-high profits and sky-high prices. Youth climate activists seized the opportunity to remind the oil executives and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that we too have a stake in creating an oil-independent future.

Students from University of Maryland-College Park, American University, and organizations in the Energy Action Coalition held a “Billionaires for Big Oil” rally outside of Congress’s Cannon Office Building. Full press release and pictures can be found here.

After the hearing we attempted to give a “Fossil Foolie” award to Exxon-Mobil Senior VP, Stephen Simon. He didn’t seem amused:

Video credit to Claire Roby, Senior at American University

Social Entrepreneurship in the Climate Movement

New and better ways of doing things should be a key element of the climate movement. We’re trying to find better ways to generate energy and conserve energy. We’re also trying to find new and better ways to engage people in creating those solutions. Even if you think we need to use a lot less technology, we still need to figure out how to engage people in the solutions at a society-wide scale.

Social entrepreneurship “combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination.” (Dees 2001) An entrepreneur is someone who undertakes something innovative, usually a business, but that could also be a non-profit program. Social entrepreneurship blurs the lines between not-for-profit, for-profit and sometimes government, and it is a frame many of us should adopt.

If we are global warming solutions, then many of us are also social entrepreneurs. Anyone who has started an ambitious, new climate action group is one. The Campus Climate Challenge is a social-entrepruneurial venture. Its important to remember that just starting something doesn’t necessarily qualify. A new, mom-and-pop coffee shop isn’t a new or innovative undertaking, just as holding a day of action isn’t innovative. But innovation takes many forms and there is potential for it in anything.

Continue reading ‘Bold Undertakings’

The bustling halls of the United Nations climate negotiations still ringing in my ears, it’s been an incredible few months since I and other youth delegates from SustainUS returned from Bali. So many friends and neighbors emailed or stopped by to say “Thanks for sending your email updates from Bali!” and “Welcome home!” I still feel the excitement of working with the best & brightest of the youth climate movement around the world.

Upon returning from Bali as a US youth delegate, I was filled with hope that humanity will create a global consciousness by rising to meet the climate emergency. In the last few months, worsening scientific predictions have only strengthened my belief that we are the leaders we seek. It’s up to us. We have the power to make the climate emergency, and the immense economic opportunities we will realize from solving it, our top priority. A bold, broad movement is needed on a scale larger than the mobilization for World War II. This mobilization will only be accomplished by unleashing a renewed civic engagement.

Continue reading ‘Post-Bali Dispatch: “Lighting Up” a movement in Upstate New York!’

Looking for an amazing experience working with other youth leaders of the climate movement this summer? Check out the Summer of Solutions:

We’ll be using the principles of Open Space organizing to empower participants to engage in creative action on their own terms, yet as vital members of the team. As student climate organizers at Macalester College, the organizers have been building grassroots community partnerships and strategic initiatives around green manufacturing, entrepreneurial community energy efficiency, community-based clean energy development, and much more for the past two years. Using this base and our collective skills and insights, we will work together to advance these initiatives and create more while building a base of young leaders ready to lead their communities all across the country towards a sustainable future. We will realize the Climate Positive Vision by using “a mind-set that engages eagerly in the opportunities inherent in solving the climate crisis” to generate the solutions that will get us there. In the process, we’ll meet lots of amazing people, discuss so many amazing things, build skills that will last a life-time, and have lots of fun!

The Summer of Solutions will be June 1 - Aug 1 in St. Paul, MN. If you’re interested in helping build innovative solutions to climate change, fill out the simple application by one of the priority deadlines: April 1, 15, or 29 - PLEASE apply ASAP! After you apply, we’ll help you figure out how to get paid through various programs/ fundraising that we’ll help you with. The application and much more info can be found at
http://grandaspirations.org/summerofsol/summerofsolutions.html.

Questions (AND Applications) can be sent to summerofsolutions@gmail.com. We hope you can join us!

If this won’t fit your schedule, but you’re looking for other amazing options, check out the Summer Opportunities Page.

[So I know Jamie beat me to the punch, and I owe Dana a tip of the hat for bringing the interview to my attention, but here's my rant on Hillary's apparent love for coal...]

In an interview on West Virginia Public Radio this morning, Hillary Clinton revealed some pretty profound ignorance about the true costs of coal and especially about the destruction mountain top coal mining is wrecking on both communities and ecosystems in Appalachia. Give it a listen:

Sure sounds like Hillary has drunk the (sour) kool-aid being peddled by coal-front group “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices” (or ABEC, which might as well stand for “American Blowhards Excited about Coal”). Lets compare what Hillary is stumping and what the coal industry’s PR machine has to say:

Continue reading ‘Hillary Clinton Loves Her Some Coal’